Rheumatology

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

New research links the use of glucocorticoids with changes in white matter microstructure – which may explain the development of anxiety, depression, and other neuropsychiatric side effects related to these drugs, investigators say.

Results from a cross-sectional study showed that use of both systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with widespread reductions in fractional anisotropy (FA) and increases in mean diffusivity.

Glucocorticoids have “a whole catalogue” of adverse events, and effects on brain structure “adds to the list,” co-investigator Onno C. Meijer, PhD, professor of molecular neuroendocrinology of corticosteroids, department of medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

Serious side effects

Glucocorticoids, a class of synthetic steroids with immunosuppressive properties, are prescribed for a wide range of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.

However, they are also associated with potentially serious metabolic, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal side effects as well as neuropsychiatric side effects such as depression, mania, and cognitive impairment.

About 1 in 3 patients exposed to “quite a lot of these drugs” will experience neuropsychiatric symptoms, Dr. Meijer said.

Most previous studies that investigated effects from high levels of glucocorticoids on brain structure have been small and involved selected populations, such as those with Cushing disease.

The new study included participants from the UK Biobank, a large population-based cohort. Participants had undergone imaging and did not have a history of psychiatric disease – although they could have conditions associated with glucocorticoid use, including anxiety, depression, mania, or delirium.

The analysis included 222 patients using oral or parenteral glucocorticoids at the time of imaging (systemic group), 557 using inhaled glucocorticoids, and 24,106 not using glucocorticoids (the control group).

Inhaled steroids target the lungs, whereas a steroid in pill form “travels in the blood and reaches each and every organ and cell in the body and typically requires higher doses,” Dr. Meijer noted.

The groups were similar with respect to sex, education, and smoking status. However, the systemic glucocorticoid group was slightly older (mean age, 66.1 years vs. 63.3 years for inhaled glucocorticoid users and 63.5 years for the control group).

In addition to age, researchers adjusted for sex, education level, head position in the scanner, head size, assessment center, and year of imaging.
 

Imaging analyses

Imaging analyses showed systemic glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (adjusted mean difference, -3.7e-3; 95% confidence interval, -6.4e-3 to 1.0e-3), and reductions in regional FA in the body and genu of the corpus callosum versus the control group.

Inhaled glucocorticoid use was associated with reduced global FA (AMD, -2.3e-3; 95% CI, -4.0e-3 to -5.7e-4), and lower FA in the splenium of the corpus callosum and the cingulum of the hippocampus.

Global mean diffusivity was higher in systemic glucocorticoid users (AMD, 7.2e-6; 95% CI, 3.2e-6 to 1.1e-5) and inhaled glucocorticoid users (AMD, 2.7e-6; 95% CI, 1.7e-7 to 5.2e-6), compared with the control group.

The effects of glucocorticoids on white matter were “pervasive,” and the “most important finding” of the study, Dr. Meijer said. “We were impressed by the fact white matter is so sensitive to these drugs.”

He noted that it is likely that functional connectivity between brain regions is affected by use of glucocorticoids. “You could say communication between brain regions is probably somewhat impaired or challenged,” he said.

Subgroup analyses among participants using glucocorticoids chronically, defined as reported at two consecutive visits, suggested a potential dose-dependent or duration-dependent effect of glucocorticoids on white matter microstructure.

Systemic glucocorticoid use was also associated with an increase in total and grey matter volume of the caudate nucleus.

In addition, there was a significant association between inhaled glucocorticoid use and decreased grey matter volume of the amygdala, which Dr. Meijer said was surprising because studies have shown that glucocorticoids “can drive amygdala big time.”
 

Move away from ‘one dose for all’?

Another surprise was that the results showed no hippocampal volume differences with steroid use, Dr. Meijer noted.

The modest association between glucocorticoid use and brain volumes could indicate that white matter integrity is more sensitive to glucocorticoids than is grey matter volume, “at least at the structural level,” he said.

He added that longer use or higher doses may be necessary to also induce volumetric changes.

Participants also completed a questionnaire to assess mood over the previous 2 weeks. Systemic glucocorticoid users had more depressive symptoms, disinterest, tenseness/restlessness, and tiredness/lethargy, compared with the control group. Inhaled glucocorticoid users only reported more tiredness/lethargy.

The investigators note that mood-related effects could be linked to the condition for which glucocorticoids were prescribed: for example, rheumatoid arthritis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In terms of cognition, systemic glucocorticoid users performed significantly worse on the symbol digit substitution task, compared with participants in the control group.

In light of these findings, pharmaceutical companies that make inhaled corticosteroids “should perhaps find out if glucocorticoids can be dosed by kilogram body weight rather than simply one dose fits all,” which is currently the case, Dr. Meijer said.
 

Impressive, but several limitations

Commenting on the findings, E. Sherwood Brown, MD, PhD, Distinguished Chair in Psychiatric Research and professor and vice chair for clinical research, department of psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, called the study sample size “impressive.”

In addition, the study is the first to look at systemic as well as inhaled corticosteroids, said Dr. Brown, who was not involved with the research. He noted that previously, there had been only case reports of psychiatric symptoms with inhaled corticosteroids.

That results are in the same direction but greater with systemic, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, is “particularly interesting” because this might suggest dose-dependent effects, Dr. Brown said.

He noted that cognitive differences were also only observed with systemic corticosteroids.

Some study observations, such as smaller amygdala volume with inhaled but not systemic corticosteroids, “are harder to understand,” said Dr. Brown.

However, he pointed out some study limitations. For example, data were apparently unavailable for verbal and declarative memory test data, despite corticosteroids probably affecting the hippocampus and causing memory changes.

Other drawbacks were that the dose and duration of corticosteroid use, as well as the medical histories of study participants, were not available, Dr. Brown said.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Meijer has received research grants and honorariums from Corcept Therapeutics and a speakers’ fee from Ipsen. Dr. Brown is on an advisory board for Sage Pharmaceuticals, which is developing neurosteroids (not corticosteroids) for mood disorders. He is also on a Medscape advisory board related to bipolar disorder.

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

Changes in Medicare law will help some patients who need costly rheumatology treatments, including several medicines for which competition has been kept in check for many years.

In fact, this field of medicine includes prime examples of the kinds of products that drove Congress to give the giant federal health program leverage to try to restrain rising pharmaceutical costs through negotiations. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16, also provides some fairly quick aid for people enrolled in Medicare who struggle with pharmacy bills.

Getty

As described in an official summary from the Congressional Research Service, the law establishes:

• A cap on annual Medicare Part D out-of-pocket spending that starts in 2025 at $2,000, with planned annual adjustments thereafter.
• A limit on cost-sharing under Medicare Part D for a month’s supply of covered insulin products at $35 for 2023 through 2025, with plans for continued limits on this cost in the years after pegged to negotiated prices.
• A program under which drug manufacturers provide discounts to beneficiaries who have incurred costs above the annual deductible beginning in 2025.
• A requirement that drugmakers issue rebates to Medicare for certain brand-name drugs covered without generic equivalents for which prices increase faster than inflation.
• An obligation for Medicare Part D plans to pay for adult vaccines that are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without requiring cost sharing.

The law’s marquee health provision sets the stage for Medicare, the nation’s largest purchaser of drugs, for the first time to leverage its clout directly in negotiating for lower costs for medicines. Democrats sought to build what amount to guardrails into this program, seeking to spare from competition new and innovative drugs and ones developed by smaller companies. Drugs likely to soon face competition from copycat versions also would fall outside of the pool for negotiations.

In effect, the design of the program would allow Medicare to negotiate in the future in cases such as those seen in recent years with blockbuster medicines often in rheumatology. That’s due in a large part to legal challenges that have helped thwart the introduction of copycat versions of these kinds of products known as biosimilars.

Etanercept (Enbrel) has been sold in the United States since 1998 and adalimumab (Humira) since 2003. Both products face competition from copycat versions called biosimilars in other nations, but the introductions of these products have been delayed in the United States until 2029 for etanercept and 2023 for adalimumab, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services said in a March 2022 report. The OIG said in the report that the combined 2019 Medicare Part D tab for the two biologics was more than $5 billion.

Rheumatology drugs rival cancer medicines for dominance among the most expensive drugs for people enrolled in Medicare. The average 2020 spending for the most widely used forms of adalimumab by people in Medicare’s Part D pharmacy program topped $51,000, according to federal data. The price per dosage-unit for the drug rose about 7% from 2019 to 2020.

The pharmaceutical industry defends the high introductory costs of medicines and subsequent rising prices as necessary payback for research on products sold and the ones still in development. Since the initial Food and Drug Administration approval of adalimumab on Dec. 31, 2002, Abbott Laboratories and its AbbVie spin-off have made changes to the drug’s administration and paid for studies to expand its approved indications.

Still, the investment in adalimumab appears to have been paid well.

Abbott Labs acquired adalimumab as part of its purchase of BASF’s pharmaceutical operations in 2001, a purchase that also included the thyroid drug Synthroid. Abbott paid $7.2 billion, or roughly $12 billion in current dollars. In 2021 alone, Humira sales were $20.7 billion, with the United States accounting for $17.3 billion of the product’s revenue.
 

Losing access to treatment when moving to Medicare

Sue Lee of Crestwood, Ky., is among the patients waiting to see if the changes in Medicare law might allow her to again afford adalimumab. For now, Ms. Lee said she is hoping her plaque psoriasis stays manageable with the topical ointments and moisturizers she has been using since losing access to adalimumab. Ms. Lee, 80, took the medicine during her working years for her plaque psoriasis.

“I told people: ‘I’m on the wonder drug. Look at me. I can show my skin now. I don’t have all of these sores,’ ” she said in an interview.

But after she retired at 75, she was shocked at the tab she faced after switching from private insurance to Medicare. She said it could have cost her close to $10,000 a year to take Humira. Ms. Lee’s Social Security earnings make her ineligible for certain assistance with drug costs.

“I cried a lot,” she said about the loss of affordable access to the drug.
 

What’s the path ahead?

The American College of Rheumatology and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations are among the physician groups that pressed Congress for years for action to lower drug costs. Their members have been on the frontline of the crisis in the United States among patients unable to afford medicines.

“The financial burden of skyrocketing drug prices has forced many of our patients to spread their treatment out longer than prescribed, delay care, abandon prescriptions, or forgo treatment entirely – all of which risks flare-ups, disease regression, permanent disability, and even premature death,” said Blair Solow, MD, chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee, in a statement on the new Medicare provisions.

In an interview, Dr. Solow, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that there are concerns about how changes in Medicare drug pricing might affect future development of medicines. This has been a chief criticism of the pharmaceutical industry of efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices.

“Of note, drug companies research, create, and produce medications that will perform well in the market, not necessarily those that may be most needed,” Dr. Solow wrote. “We can hope the new medications put forth by manufacturers are those that improve the lives of patients.”

In July, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on an earlier version of the Democrats’ plans for Medicare drug negotiations that suggested the potential loss to drugmakers’ productivity may be relatively small. The CBO expects that about 1,300 drugs will be approved over the next 30 years. The legislation as proposed in July might reduce the tally by 15 drugs. The CBO said these estimates fell in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes and are subject to uncertainty, and it is still working on an estimate of the expects effects of the final version of the law.

“CBO did not predict what kind of drugs would be affected or analyze the effects of forgone innovation on public health,” the agency said.

Dr. Solow also said there may be some challenges for physicians in explaining to patients the timeline for the new law’s Medicare provisions. People need to be aware of how long it will take to implement the plan and the potential for changes or delays.

“I think this is important, because the interpretation of the law can be done in a way that was not necessarily what Congress intended, and depending on the control of Congress and the Administration, this could impact downstream effects in how this law plays out,” she said in an interview.

CMS has substantial work ahead of it in choosing the drugs for which there will be subject to negotiations. The new law limits the number of drugs that can be negotiated to 10 annually in 2026, increasing to 20 drugs annually by 2029. Drugs would be eligible for negotiated prices from 9 years after drug approval or 13 years for biologics, until entry of a generic or biosimilar competitor.

The new law calls for taxes and other penalties for companies that refuse to negotiate or offer the agreed price, Thomas J. Hwang, MD; Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH; and Benjamin N. Rome, MD, MPH, all of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an Aug. 19 viewpoint article in JAMA. U.S. lawmakers took a different approach to negotiations about drug prices than those used in other countries, they wrote.

“Notably, the Inflation Reduction Act shields new drugs from negotiated prices for the first 9-13 years on the market,” they wrote. “In contrast, most other peer countries typically negotiate drug prices at the time of market entry, and no peer country limits the number of drugs negotiated.”


 

Missed opportunities

Madelaine Feldman, MD, president of the CSRO and a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans, said in an interview that she welcomes many of the provisions of the new law, as they will help her rheumatology patients afford their medicine.

But she considers one of the provisions of the law to be a disappointment. The law further delays the start date for a federal rule intended to allow people on Medicare Part D to directly benefit from discounts negotiated on drugs. This is a point often overlooked in news reports on the law.

Insurers use what are called pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) services to obtain rebates on medicines, but they don’t fully or directly share these price reductions with people enrolled in Part D plans. Instead, people in the Part D plans have their cost sharing pegged closer to listed prices, the ones set before the rebates obtained by PBMs. The PBM industry argues that the rebates, often based on the list price of the drug, serve to keep monthly insurance premiums low. But there’s been concern about perverse incentives in this approach, where more expensive drugs are preferred by PBMs, leading to higher rebates.

Congress had already delayed its implementation of the PBM rule, which would apply savings more directly to patients, until 2027 and did so again in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Implementing this rule on Medicare Part D prescription drug rebates would be a help for patients struggling to pay for costly drugs, such as those used in rheumatology, Dr. Feldman said.

“It just doesn’t make any sense to hold off on these changes if you really want to cut Medicare’s beneficiaries’ cost sharing and attempt to stop the perverse incentive that puts higher priced drugs on Part D formularies,” she said.

Changes in Medicare law will help some patients who need costly rheumatology treatments, including several medicines for which competition has been kept in check for many years.

In fact, this field of medicine includes prime examples of the kinds of products that drove Congress to give the giant federal health program leverage to try to restrain rising pharmaceutical costs through negotiations. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16, also provides some fairly quick aid for people enrolled in Medicare who struggle with pharmacy bills.

Getty

As described in an official summary from the Congressional Research Service, the law establishes:

• A cap on annual Medicare Part D out-of-pocket spending that starts in 2025 at $2,000, with planned annual adjustments thereafter.
• A limit on cost-sharing under Medicare Part D for a month’s supply of covered insulin products at $35 for 2023 through 2025, with plans for continued limits on this cost in the years after pegged to negotiated prices.
• A program under which drug manufacturers provide discounts to beneficiaries who have incurred costs above the annual deductible beginning in 2025.
• A requirement that drugmakers issue rebates to Medicare for certain brand-name drugs covered without generic equivalents for which prices increase faster than inflation.
• An obligation for Medicare Part D plans to pay for adult vaccines that are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without requiring cost sharing.

The law’s marquee health provision sets the stage for Medicare, the nation’s largest purchaser of drugs, for the first time to leverage its clout directly in negotiating for lower costs for medicines. Democrats sought to build what amount to guardrails into this program, seeking to spare from competition new and innovative drugs and ones developed by smaller companies. Drugs likely to soon face competition from copycat versions also would fall outside of the pool for negotiations.

In effect, the design of the program would allow Medicare to negotiate in the future in cases such as those seen in recent years with blockbuster medicines often in rheumatology. That’s due in a large part to legal challenges that have helped thwart the introduction of copycat versions of these kinds of products known as biosimilars.

Etanercept (Enbrel) has been sold in the United States since 1998 and adalimumab (Humira) since 2003. Both products face competition from copycat versions called biosimilars in other nations, but the introductions of these products have been delayed in the United States until 2029 for etanercept and 2023 for adalimumab, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services said in a March 2022 report. The OIG said in the report that the combined 2019 Medicare Part D tab for the two biologics was more than $5 billion.

Rheumatology drugs rival cancer medicines for dominance among the most expensive drugs for people enrolled in Medicare. The average 2020 spending for the most widely used forms of adalimumab by people in Medicare’s Part D pharmacy program topped $51,000, according to federal data. The price per dosage-unit for the drug rose about 7% from 2019 to 2020.

The pharmaceutical industry defends the high introductory costs of medicines and subsequent rising prices as necessary payback for research on products sold and the ones still in development. Since the initial Food and Drug Administration approval of adalimumab on Dec. 31, 2002, Abbott Laboratories and its AbbVie spin-off have made changes to the drug’s administration and paid for studies to expand its approved indications.

Still, the investment in adalimumab appears to have been paid well.

Abbott Labs acquired adalimumab as part of its purchase of BASF’s pharmaceutical operations in 2001, a purchase that also included the thyroid drug Synthroid. Abbott paid $7.2 billion, or roughly $12 billion in current dollars. In 2021 alone, Humira sales were $20.7 billion, with the United States accounting for $17.3 billion of the product’s revenue.
 

Losing access to treatment when moving to Medicare

Sue Lee of Crestwood, Ky., is among the patients waiting to see if the changes in Medicare law might allow her to again afford adalimumab. For now, Ms. Lee said she is hoping her plaque psoriasis stays manageable with the topical ointments and moisturizers she has been using since losing access to adalimumab. Ms. Lee, 80, took the medicine during her working years for her plaque psoriasis.

“I told people: ‘I’m on the wonder drug. Look at me. I can show my skin now. I don’t have all of these sores,’ ” she said in an interview.

But after she retired at 75, she was shocked at the tab she faced after switching from private insurance to Medicare. She said it could have cost her close to $10,000 a year to take Humira. Ms. Lee’s Social Security earnings make her ineligible for certain assistance with drug costs.

“I cried a lot,” she said about the loss of affordable access to the drug.
 

What’s the path ahead?

The American College of Rheumatology and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations are among the physician groups that pressed Congress for years for action to lower drug costs. Their members have been on the frontline of the crisis in the United States among patients unable to afford medicines.

“The financial burden of skyrocketing drug prices has forced many of our patients to spread their treatment out longer than prescribed, delay care, abandon prescriptions, or forgo treatment entirely – all of which risks flare-ups, disease regression, permanent disability, and even premature death,” said Blair Solow, MD, chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee, in a statement on the new Medicare provisions.

In an interview, Dr. Solow, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that there are concerns about how changes in Medicare drug pricing might affect future development of medicines. This has been a chief criticism of the pharmaceutical industry of efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices.

“Of note, drug companies research, create, and produce medications that will perform well in the market, not necessarily those that may be most needed,” Dr. Solow wrote. “We can hope the new medications put forth by manufacturers are those that improve the lives of patients.”

In July, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on an earlier version of the Democrats’ plans for Medicare drug negotiations that suggested the potential loss to drugmakers’ productivity may be relatively small. The CBO expects that about 1,300 drugs will be approved over the next 30 years. The legislation as proposed in July might reduce the tally by 15 drugs. The CBO said these estimates fell in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes and are subject to uncertainty, and it is still working on an estimate of the expects effects of the final version of the law.

“CBO did not predict what kind of drugs would be affected or analyze the effects of forgone innovation on public health,” the agency said.

Dr. Solow also said there may be some challenges for physicians in explaining to patients the timeline for the new law’s Medicare provisions. People need to be aware of how long it will take to implement the plan and the potential for changes or delays.

“I think this is important, because the interpretation of the law can be done in a way that was not necessarily what Congress intended, and depending on the control of Congress and the Administration, this could impact downstream effects in how this law plays out,” she said in an interview.

CMS has substantial work ahead of it in choosing the drugs for which there will be subject to negotiations. The new law limits the number of drugs that can be negotiated to 10 annually in 2026, increasing to 20 drugs annually by 2029. Drugs would be eligible for negotiated prices from 9 years after drug approval or 13 years for biologics, until entry of a generic or biosimilar competitor.

The new law calls for taxes and other penalties for companies that refuse to negotiate or offer the agreed price, Thomas J. Hwang, MD; Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH; and Benjamin N. Rome, MD, MPH, all of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an Aug. 19 viewpoint article in JAMA. U.S. lawmakers took a different approach to negotiations about drug prices than those used in other countries, they wrote.

“Notably, the Inflation Reduction Act shields new drugs from negotiated prices for the first 9-13 years on the market,” they wrote. “In contrast, most other peer countries typically negotiate drug prices at the time of market entry, and no peer country limits the number of drugs negotiated.”


 

Missed opportunities

Madelaine Feldman, MD, president of the CSRO and a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans, said in an interview that she welcomes many of the provisions of the new law, as they will help her rheumatology patients afford their medicine.

But she considers one of the provisions of the law to be a disappointment. The law further delays the start date for a federal rule intended to allow people on Medicare Part D to directly benefit from discounts negotiated on drugs. This is a point often overlooked in news reports on the law.

Insurers use what are called pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) services to obtain rebates on medicines, but they don’t fully or directly share these price reductions with people enrolled in Part D plans. Instead, people in the Part D plans have their cost sharing pegged closer to listed prices, the ones set before the rebates obtained by PBMs. The PBM industry argues that the rebates, often based on the list price of the drug, serve to keep monthly insurance premiums low. But there’s been concern about perverse incentives in this approach, where more expensive drugs are preferred by PBMs, leading to higher rebates.

Congress had already delayed its implementation of the PBM rule, which would apply savings more directly to patients, until 2027 and did so again in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Implementing this rule on Medicare Part D prescription drug rebates would be a help for patients struggling to pay for costly drugs, such as those used in rheumatology, Dr. Feldman said.

“It just doesn’t make any sense to hold off on these changes if you really want to cut Medicare’s beneficiaries’ cost sharing and attempt to stop the perverse incentive that puts higher priced drugs on Part D formularies,” she said.

Changes in Medicare law will help some patients who need costly rheumatology treatments, including several medicines for which competition has been kept in check for many years.

In fact, this field of medicine includes prime examples of the kinds of products that drove Congress to give the giant federal health program leverage to try to restrain rising pharmaceutical costs through negotiations. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16, also provides some fairly quick aid for people enrolled in Medicare who struggle with pharmacy bills.

Getty

As described in an official summary from the Congressional Research Service, the law establishes:

• A cap on annual Medicare Part D out-of-pocket spending that starts in 2025 at $2,000, with planned annual adjustments thereafter.
• A limit on cost-sharing under Medicare Part D for a month’s supply of covered insulin products at $35 for 2023 through 2025, with plans for continued limits on this cost in the years after pegged to negotiated prices.
• A program under which drug manufacturers provide discounts to beneficiaries who have incurred costs above the annual deductible beginning in 2025.
• A requirement that drugmakers issue rebates to Medicare for certain brand-name drugs covered without generic equivalents for which prices increase faster than inflation.
• An obligation for Medicare Part D plans to pay for adult vaccines that are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without requiring cost sharing.

The law’s marquee health provision sets the stage for Medicare, the nation’s largest purchaser of drugs, for the first time to leverage its clout directly in negotiating for lower costs for medicines. Democrats sought to build what amount to guardrails into this program, seeking to spare from competition new and innovative drugs and ones developed by smaller companies. Drugs likely to soon face competition from copycat versions also would fall outside of the pool for negotiations.

In effect, the design of the program would allow Medicare to negotiate in the future in cases such as those seen in recent years with blockbuster medicines often in rheumatology. That’s due in a large part to legal challenges that have helped thwart the introduction of copycat versions of these kinds of products known as biosimilars.

Etanercept (Enbrel) has been sold in the United States since 1998 and adalimumab (Humira) since 2003. Both products face competition from copycat versions called biosimilars in other nations, but the introductions of these products have been delayed in the United States until 2029 for etanercept and 2023 for adalimumab, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health & Human Services said in a March 2022 report. The OIG said in the report that the combined 2019 Medicare Part D tab for the two biologics was more than $5 billion.

Rheumatology drugs rival cancer medicines for dominance among the most expensive drugs for people enrolled in Medicare. The average 2020 spending for the most widely used forms of adalimumab by people in Medicare’s Part D pharmacy program topped $51,000, according to federal data. The price per dosage-unit for the drug rose about 7% from 2019 to 2020.

The pharmaceutical industry defends the high introductory costs of medicines and subsequent rising prices as necessary payback for research on products sold and the ones still in development. Since the initial Food and Drug Administration approval of adalimumab on Dec. 31, 2002, Abbott Laboratories and its AbbVie spin-off have made changes to the drug’s administration and paid for studies to expand its approved indications.

Still, the investment in adalimumab appears to have been paid well.

Abbott Labs acquired adalimumab as part of its purchase of BASF’s pharmaceutical operations in 2001, a purchase that also included the thyroid drug Synthroid. Abbott paid $7.2 billion, or roughly $12 billion in current dollars. In 2021 alone, Humira sales were $20.7 billion, with the United States accounting for $17.3 billion of the product’s revenue.
 

Losing access to treatment when moving to Medicare

Sue Lee of Crestwood, Ky., is among the patients waiting to see if the changes in Medicare law might allow her to again afford adalimumab. For now, Ms. Lee said she is hoping her plaque psoriasis stays manageable with the topical ointments and moisturizers she has been using since losing access to adalimumab. Ms. Lee, 80, took the medicine during her working years for her plaque psoriasis.

“I told people: ‘I’m on the wonder drug. Look at me. I can show my skin now. I don’t have all of these sores,’ ” she said in an interview.

But after she retired at 75, she was shocked at the tab she faced after switching from private insurance to Medicare. She said it could have cost her close to $10,000 a year to take Humira. Ms. Lee’s Social Security earnings make her ineligible for certain assistance with drug costs.

“I cried a lot,” she said about the loss of affordable access to the drug.
 

What’s the path ahead?

The American College of Rheumatology and the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations are among the physician groups that pressed Congress for years for action to lower drug costs. Their members have been on the frontline of the crisis in the United States among patients unable to afford medicines.

“The financial burden of skyrocketing drug prices has forced many of our patients to spread their treatment out longer than prescribed, delay care, abandon prescriptions, or forgo treatment entirely – all of which risks flare-ups, disease regression, permanent disability, and even premature death,” said Blair Solow, MD, chair of the ACR’s Government Affairs Committee, in a statement on the new Medicare provisions.

In an interview, Dr. Solow, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that there are concerns about how changes in Medicare drug pricing might affect future development of medicines. This has been a chief criticism of the pharmaceutical industry of efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower prices.

“Of note, drug companies research, create, and produce medications that will perform well in the market, not necessarily those that may be most needed,” Dr. Solow wrote. “We can hope the new medications put forth by manufacturers are those that improve the lives of patients.”

In July, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on an earlier version of the Democrats’ plans for Medicare drug negotiations that suggested the potential loss to drugmakers’ productivity may be relatively small. The CBO expects that about 1,300 drugs will be approved over the next 30 years. The legislation as proposed in July might reduce the tally by 15 drugs. The CBO said these estimates fell in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes and are subject to uncertainty, and it is still working on an estimate of the expects effects of the final version of the law.

“CBO did not predict what kind of drugs would be affected or analyze the effects of forgone innovation on public health,” the agency said.

Dr. Solow also said there may be some challenges for physicians in explaining to patients the timeline for the new law’s Medicare provisions. People need to be aware of how long it will take to implement the plan and the potential for changes or delays.

“I think this is important, because the interpretation of the law can be done in a way that was not necessarily what Congress intended, and depending on the control of Congress and the Administration, this could impact downstream effects in how this law plays out,” she said in an interview.

CMS has substantial work ahead of it in choosing the drugs for which there will be subject to negotiations. The new law limits the number of drugs that can be negotiated to 10 annually in 2026, increasing to 20 drugs annually by 2029. Drugs would be eligible for negotiated prices from 9 years after drug approval or 13 years for biologics, until entry of a generic or biosimilar competitor.

The new law calls for taxes and other penalties for companies that refuse to negotiate or offer the agreed price, Thomas J. Hwang, MD; Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH; and Benjamin N. Rome, MD, MPH, all of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an Aug. 19 viewpoint article in JAMA. U.S. lawmakers took a different approach to negotiations about drug prices than those used in other countries, they wrote.

“Notably, the Inflation Reduction Act shields new drugs from negotiated prices for the first 9-13 years on the market,” they wrote. “In contrast, most other peer countries typically negotiate drug prices at the time of market entry, and no peer country limits the number of drugs negotiated.”


 

Missed opportunities

Madelaine Feldman, MD, president of the CSRO and a rheumatologist in private practice with The Rheumatology Group in New Orleans, said in an interview that she welcomes many of the provisions of the new law, as they will help her rheumatology patients afford their medicine.

But she considers one of the provisions of the law to be a disappointment. The law further delays the start date for a federal rule intended to allow people on Medicare Part D to directly benefit from discounts negotiated on drugs. This is a point often overlooked in news reports on the law.

Insurers use what are called pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) services to obtain rebates on medicines, but they don’t fully or directly share these price reductions with people enrolled in Part D plans. Instead, people in the Part D plans have their cost sharing pegged closer to listed prices, the ones set before the rebates obtained by PBMs. The PBM industry argues that the rebates, often based on the list price of the drug, serve to keep monthly insurance premiums low. But there’s been concern about perverse incentives in this approach, where more expensive drugs are preferred by PBMs, leading to higher rebates.

Congress had already delayed its implementation of the PBM rule, which would apply savings more directly to patients, until 2027 and did so again in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Implementing this rule on Medicare Part D prescription drug rebates would be a help for patients struggling to pay for costly drugs, such as those used in rheumatology, Dr. Feldman said.

“It just doesn’t make any sense to hold off on these changes if you really want to cut Medicare’s beneficiaries’ cost sharing and attempt to stop the perverse incentive that puts higher priced drugs on Part D formularies,” she said.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Contrary to expectations, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) reduced the risk for ischemic stroke and death, compared with the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, (Xarelto, Janssen) in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation (AFib), in the INVICTUS trial.

Patients receiving a VKA, typically warfarin, had a 25% lower risk for the primary outcome – a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular or unknown causes outcome – than receiving rivaroxaban (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41).

This difference was driven primarily by a significant reduction in the risk for death in the VKA group, and without a significant increase in major bleeding, reported Ganesan Karthikeyan, MD, from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

“VKA should remain the standard of care for patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation,” he concluded in a hotline session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The study, simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first randomized controlled trial to assess anticoagulant therapy in patients with rheumatic heart disease and AFib.

“Who could have possibly guessed these results? Certainly not me,” said invited discussant Renato D. Lopes, MD, MHS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. “To me, this is one more classical example of why we need to do randomized trials, since they are the only reliable way to determine treatment effects and drive clinical practice.”

Evidence gap

Rheumatic heart disease affects over 40 million people, mainly living in low- and low- to middle-income countries. About 20% of symptomatic patients have AF and an elevated stroke risk, but previous AFib trials excluded these patients, Dr. Karthikeyan noted.

INVICTUS was led by the Population Health Research Institute in Hamilton, Ont., and enrolled 4,565 patients from 24 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who had rheumatic heart disease, AFib or atrial flutter, and an increased stroke risk caused by any of the following: CHA2DS2VASc score of 2 or more, moderate to severe mitral stenosis (valve area ≤ 2.0 cm²), left atrial spontaneous echo contrast, or left atrial thrombus.

Participants were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 20 mg once daily (15 mg/d if creatinine clearance was 15-49 mL/min), or a VKA titrated to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0.

Warfarin was used in 79%-85% of patients assigned to VKA, with the percentage varying between visits. The INR was in therapeutic range in 33.2% of patients at baseline, 65.1% at 3 years, and 64.1% at 4 years.

During an average follow-up of 3.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in 446 patients in the VKA group (6.49% per year) and 560 patients in the rivaroxaban group (8.21% per year). The restricted mean survival time for the primary outcome was 1,675 vs. 1,599 days, respectively (difference, –76 days; 95% CI, –121 to –31 days; P for superiority < .001).

The rate of stroke or systemic embolism was similar between the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (75 vs. 94 events), although ischemic strokes were significantly lower with VKA (48 vs. 74 events).
 

No easy explanation

Deaths were significantly lower with VKA than rivaroxaban, at 442 versus 552 (restricted mean survival time for death, 1,608 vs. 1,587 days; difference, −72 days; 95% CI, –117 to –28 days).

“This reduction is not easily explained,” Dr. Karthikeyan acknowledged. “We cannot explain this reduction by the reduction in stroke that we saw because the number of deaths that are prevented by VKA are far larger than the number of strokes that are prevented. Moreover, the number of deaths were mainly heart failure or sudden deaths.”

Numbers of patients with major bleeding were also similar in the VKA and rivaroxaban groups (56 vs. 40 patients; P = .18), although numbers with fatal bleeding were lower with rivaroxaban (15 vs. 4, respectively).

By design, there were more physician interactions for monthly monitoring of INR in the VKA group, “but we do not believe such a large reduction can be explained entirely by increased health care contact,” he said. Moreover, there was no significant between-group difference in heart failure medications or hospitalizations or the need for valve replacement.

Almost a quarter (23%) of patients in the rivaroxaban group permanently discontinued the study drug versus just 6% in the VKA group.

Importantly, the mortality benefit emerged much later than in other trials and coincided with the time when the INR became therapeutic at about 3 years, Dr. Karthikeyan said. But it is unknown whether this is because of the INR or an unrelated effect.
 

More physician contact

Following the presentation, session cochair C. Michael Gibson, MD, Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Harvard Medical School, Boston, questioned the 23% discontinuation rate for rivaroxaban. “Is this really a superiority of warfarin or is this superiority of having someone come in and see their physician for a lot of checks on their INR?”

In response, Dr. Karthikeyan said that permanent discontinuation rates were about 20%-25% in shorter-duration direct oral anticoagulant trials, such as RELY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOLE, and exceeded 30% in ENGAGE-AF with 2.8 years’ follow-up.

“So, this is not new,” he said, adding that 31.4% of rivaroxaban patients did so for valve replacement surgery and subsequently received nonstudy VKA.

Dr. Lopes said it is important to keep in mind that INVICTUS enrolled a “very different population” that was younger (mean age, 50.5 years), was much more often female (72.3%), and had fewer comorbidities than patients with AFib who did not have rheumatic heart disease in the pivotal trials.

“It will be interesting to see the treatment effect according to mitral stenosis severity, since we had about 30% with mild mitral stenosis and additionally 18% of patients without mitral stenosis,” he added.

Co–principal investigator Stuart J. Connolly, MD, from the Population Health Research Institute, said physician contacts may be a factor but that the mortality difference was clear, highly significant, and sufficiently powered.

“What’s amazing is that what we’re seeing here is something that hasn’t been previously described with VKA or warfarin, which is that it reduces mortality,” he said in an interview.

Rivaroxaban has never been shown to reduce mortality in any particular condition, and a meta-analysis of other novel oral anticoagulants shows only a small reduction in mortality, caused almost completely by less intracranial hemorrhage than warfarin, he added. “So, we don’t think this is a problem with rivaroxaban. In some ways, rivaroxaban is an innocent bystander to a trial of warfarin in patients with rheumatic heart disease and atrial fibrillation.”

Dr. Connolly said more work is needed to explain the findings and analyses are planned to see which patients are at highest risk for death as well as looking at the relationship between INR control and outcomes.

“We need to do more research on what it is about VKA that could explain this,” he said. “Is it affecting the myocardium in some way, is it preventing fibrosis, is there some off target effect, not on the anticoagulation system, that could explain this?”

Athena Poppas, MD, chief of cardiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said “INVICTUS is an incredibly important study that needed to be done.”

“The results – though disappointing and surprising in some ways – I don’t think we can explain them away and change what we are doing right now,” she said in an interview.

Although warfarin is a cheap drug, Dr. Poppas said, it would be tremendously helpful to have an alternative treatment for these patients. Mechanistic studies are needed to understand the observed mortality advantage and low bleeding rates but that trials of other novel anticoagulants are also needed.

“But I’m not sure that will happen,” she added. “It’s unlikely to be industry sponsored, so it would be a very expensive lift with a low likelihood of success.”

In an editorial accompanying the paper, Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, University of Liverpool (England), pointed out that observational data show similar or even higher risks for major bleeding with rivaroxaban than with warfarin. “To improve outcomes in these patients, we therefore need to look beyond anticoagulation alone or beyond a type of anticoagulation drug per se. Indeed, a one-size-fits-all approach may not be appropriate.”

The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Bayer. Dr. Karthikeyan and Dr. Poppas reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Allopurinol, a drug commonly used to treat gout, provided no benefit in terms of reducing cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ischemic heart disease, new randomized trial results show.

Treatment of these patients without gout with 600 mg of allopurinol daily had no effect on composite primary endpoint outcomes, including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or CV death.

“ALL-HEART is the first large, prospective, randomized trial of the effect of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease and provides robust evidence on the role of allopurinol in these patients,” principal investigator Isla Shelagh Mackenzie, MBChB (Honors), PhD, University of Dundee (Scotland), concluded at a press conference.

Their results suggest allopurinol should not be recommended for secondary prevention of events in this group, Dr. Mackenzie said. Although it remains an important treatment for gout, she added, “other avenues for treatment of ischemic heart disease should be explored in future.”

Results of the ALL-HEART (Allopurinol and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
 

Gout treatment

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor and acts by reducing serum uric acid levels and oxidative stress. Treatment is generally well tolerated, Dr. Mackenzie noted in her presentation, but some patients develop a rash, which can in some cases be serious or even fatal, progressing to Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, “particularly in certain ethnicities.” If rash develops, the advice is to stop treatment immediately.

“The importance of serum uric acid levels in cardiovascular disease is controversial, and there have been different reports over the years of how important they may be,” Dr. Mackenzie explained.

Observational studies have shown variable results, whereas intervention trials, most with fewer than 100 participants, have suggested potential improvements in factors such as blood pressure, endothelial function, left ventricular hypertrophy, or carotid intima-media thickness. Some have reported benefits in acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery bypass grafting, but others have not, she said. A previous study by their own group suggested an improvement in chest pain and exercise time in patients with chronic stable angina and documented coronary artery disease (CAD).

“So, until now, there have been no large prospective randomized trials of the effects of allopurinol on major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease,” Dr. Mackenzie said, and this was the aim of ALL-HEART.

ALL-HEART was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, multicenter trial. Patients with ischemia heart disease but no history of gout were recruited from 424 general practices across the United Kingdom, starting in February 2014 and with follow-up ending in September 2021. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 600 mg of allopurinol daily or usual care.

“It was a decentralized trial, so the follow-up was largely remote after the first 6 weeks, and that included using record linkage data collected from centralized NHS [National Health Service] databases for hospitalizations and deaths in Scotland and England,” she said. The average follow-up was 4.8 years.

During that time, 258 (9.0%) participants in the allopurinol group and 76 (2.6%) in usual care withdrew from follow-up. By the end of the trial, 57.4% of patients in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomized treatment.

Mean serum uric acid levels dropped from 0.34 mmol/L at baseline to 0.18 mmol/L at 6 weeks of treatment, “so we can see that the treatment was effective at lowering uric acid,” she noted.

In total, there were 5,721 patients in the final intention-to-treat analysis, and 639 patients had a first primary event.

For the primary outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death, there was no difference between the groups, the researchers reported, with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.21; P = .65). Similarly, in secondary analyses, there were no differences in any of the component endpoints making up the primary outcome (nonfatal MI: HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78-1.21; P = .81; nonfatal stroke: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.89-1.60; P = .23; cardiovascular death: HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.85-1.43; P = .48), or in all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.20; P = .77), between the two groups, Dr. Mackenzie noted, “so a definitively neutral trial all round.”

In addition, no differences were seen in prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or diabetes, MI, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, and stroke or transient ischemic attack at baseline.

There were also no significant effects on quality of life outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analyses are ongoing, although no differences are expected there, Dr. Mackenzie noted.

In terms of safety, incident cancers and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Serious adverse events were also similar between groups, Dr. Mackenzie said, “and there were no fatal treatment-related SAEs [serious adverse events] in the study.”

Another negative antioxidant trial

Invited discussant for the presentation, Leslie Cho, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic said that ALL-HEART, while an excellent trial with a pragmatic design, constitutes yet another negative antioxidant trial.

She pointed to three problems with this study and antioxidant trials in general. “First, the problem is with the antioxidant,” a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. “Xanthine oxidase is not a major trigger of oxidative stress. In a field of major players,” including nitric oxide, uncoupled endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and mitochondria myeloperoxidase, Dr. Cho said, “xanthine oxidase is a minor player.”

“Moreover, 57% of the patients stopped taking allopurinol, and rightfully so,” she said. Patients were receiving optimal medical therapies, many of which are also antioxidants, including statins, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers.

Second, the patient population was older, with an average age of 72 years. “This makes the ALL-HEART study a chronic angina study, chronic CAD study, one of the oldest modern day CAD trials. If you look at LoDoCo or ISCHEMIA trials, the average age is 63.” Patients also had established disease, many with previous revascularization.

The final issue seen with this trial, and all antioxidant trials, is that patient selection is not based on oxidative stress or antioxidant level. “The antioxidant trials have been disappointing at best. There is clear and convincing evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and yet study after study of antioxidant trials have been negative,” she said.

“Currently, there is no reliable measurement of global level of oxidative stress,” Dr. Cho noted. “Moreover, dose response was not tested, and if we cannot test the baseline antioxidant stress level of patients, we also cannot measure the effect of treatment on the global oxidative stress.”

So, “is there no hope for antioxidant trials?” she asked. Three factors will be required for future success, she said. “No. 1, selecting the right patient at the right time. No. 2, a reliable biomarker to measure oxidative stress to guide who should get therapy, and if the therapy is working. And lastly, targeted therapies that work on major triggers of oxidative stress.”

Also commenting on the results, B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute/Atrium Health, clinical professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and vice president of the American College of Cardiology, called ALL-HEART “an important and interesting study.”

“For years, cardiologists and others have been interested in allopurinol as an anti-inflammatory, xanthine oxidase inhibitor ... to prevent coronary ischemic events,” he said in an interview.

But this was a well-designed, well-conducted study, and “unfortunately there was no improvement in the primary outcome, no reduction in major cardiovascular events like myocardial infarction or stroke or cardiovascular death,” Dr. Wilson said. “So, it’s a bit of a disappointment that it’s not there as an important medication to help us with these patients with ischemic heart disease, but it’s also an important question answered — that we need to look at treatments for ischemic heart disease other than allopurinol.”

The trial was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program in the United Kingdom. Dr. Mackenzie reported research contracts to her institution from NIHR HTA for this work, and other disclosures related to other work. Dr. Cho and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

Patients who received a first prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain were more likely to have new onset of arrhythmia – bradyarrhythmia, tachyarrhythmia, or a conduction disorder – within 6 months than were similar nonusers, in a new case-control study.

VladK213/Getty Images

There were no between-group differences in the incidence of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome.

The researchers identified 5,071 patients in a national Danish registry who had filled at least one prescription for medicinal cannabis for chronic pain and matched each patient with five patients of the same sex, age range, and type of chronic pain who did not receive this therapy.

The relative risk for arrhythmia was 83% higher in those who used medicinal cannabis than it was in the other patients, study author Nina Nouhravesh, MD, told this news organization in an email.

However, the absolute risks for arrhythmia were slight – a 0.86% risk (95% confidence interval, 0.61%-1.1%) in medicinal cannabis users versus a 0.47% risk (95% CI, 0.38%-0.56%) in those who did not use medicinal cannabis.

“Since medical cannabis is a relatively new drug for a large market of patients with chronic pain, it is important to investigate and report serious side effects,” said Dr. Nouhravesh, from Gentofte University Hospital, Denmark.

The study results, she said, suggest that “there may be a previously unreported risk of arrhythmias following medical cannabis use.”

“Even though the absolute risk difference is small, both patients and physicians should have as much information as possible when weighing up the pros and cons of any treatment,” Dr. Nouhravesh said, adding that “the findings of this study raise concerns for both legal and illegal [cannabis] use worldwide.”

The results will be presented at the annual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2022.
 

Too soon to tell?

However, Brian Olshansky, MD, who was not involved with this research, cautions that it is important to consider several study limitations before drawing clinical implications.

“Other data and reports have considered the possibility of arrhythmias in relationship to marijuana use, and the data go in both directions,” Dr. Olshansky, a clinical cardiac electrophysiologist and professor emeritus at University of Iowa Hospitals, Iowa City, pointed out in an email.

“Importantly, arrhythmias, by themselves, are not necessarily consequential,” he stressed. “In any case,” he added, the risks in the current study are “extraordinarily small.”

Sinus bradycardia, sinus tachycardia, and premature atrial or ventricular contractions could be totally benign, he said. On the other hand, arrhythmias may indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation, which are potentially dangerous.

There may be a specific “high risk” group who can develop potentially serious arrhythmias, Dr. Olshansky suggested.

“There is no evidence that any of these patients underwent or required any treatment for their arrhythmia or that stopping or starting the cannabinoids affected the arrhythmia one way or the other,” he said. “In addition, there is no dose/arrhythmia relationship.”

More patients in the medicinal cannabis group than in the nonuser group were also taking opioids (49% vs. 30%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (24% vs. 19%), antiepileptics (35% vs. 23%), or tricyclic antidepressants (11% vs. 4%), he noted.

In summary, according to Dr. Olshansky, “these data pose no obvious health concern and provide no vital knowledge for physicians prescribing cannabis.”

“My concern is that the information will be overblown,” he cautioned. “If the cannabinoid actually has benefit in terms of pain reduction, its use may be mitigated based on the fear of an arrhythmia that may occur – but the risk of an arrhythmia, in any event, is very small and undefined in terms of its seriousness.”
 

Cancer, musculoskeletal, and neurologic pain

For this analysis, the researchers identified 1.8 million patients in Denmark who were diagnosed with chronic pain between 2018 and 2021.

Of those, around 5,000 patients had claimed at least one prescription of medicinal cannabis (dronabinol 29%, cannabinoids 46%, or cannabidiol 25%).

The patients had a median age of 60 years, and 63% were women.

The cannabis users had been prescribed this therapy for musculoskeletal (35%), cancer (18%), neurological (14%), or other (33%) pain, Dr. Nouhravesh said. 

The researchers and Dr. Olshansky have no relevant financial disclosures.  

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

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.