Spondyloarthropathies

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.

In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.

In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
 

Pausing methotrexate after booster

The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.

It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.

“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.

In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.

Expert commentary

This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.

“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”

Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.

It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
 

Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses

Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.

Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.

In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.

The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).

The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).

The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.

Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II

Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.

“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.

“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.

Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth  and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.

In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.

In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
 

Pausing methotrexate after booster

The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.

It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.

“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.

In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.

Expert commentary

This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.

“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”

Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.

It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
 

Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses

Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.

Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.

In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.

The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).

The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).

The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.

Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II

Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.

“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.

“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.

Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth  and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.

In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.

In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
 

Pausing methotrexate after booster

The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.

It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.

“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.

In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.

However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.

Expert commentary

This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.

“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”

Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.

It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
 

Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses

Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.

Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.

In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.

The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).

The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).

The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.

Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II

Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.

“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.

“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.

Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth  and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.

The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.

In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.

Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.

Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.

A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.

“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).

Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).

Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.

For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.

AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.

The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.

In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.

Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.

Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.

A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.

“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).

Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).

Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.

For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.

AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.

The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.

In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.

Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.

Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.

A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.

“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).

Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).

Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.

For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.

AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?

javi_indy/ Thinkstock

“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”

Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”

Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.

Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.

Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.

Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.

“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”

Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.

What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”

Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”

Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”

The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.

“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”

Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.

While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.

“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”

The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Upadacitinib may soon be used for the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave it its stamp of approval.

AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 27 that the committee approved the use on June 23. The recommendation to approve market authorization for upadacitinib for nr-axSpA now goes to the European Commission, which is expected to make a decision by the third quarter of 2022.

“The CHMP’s recommendation to approve upadacitinib for patients with nr-axSpA is an important milestone in providing a new treatment option to patients in need,” said Neil Gallagher, MD, vice president of development and chief medical officer of AbbVie. He noted that currently, there are few options to treat symptoms such as inflammation, back pain, and stiffness for these patients.

Officially, the new indication for upadacitinib (Rinvoq) 15 mg once daily is for the treatment of active nr-axSpA in adult patients with objective signs of inflammation, as indicated by elevated C-reactive protein and/or MRI, whose condition has responded inadequately to NSAIDs.

Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor that in human cellular assays preferentially inhibits signaling by JAK1 or JAK1/3.

In the European Union, upadacitinib is currently approved for use in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In addition to these indications, it is approved in the United States for ulcerative colitis but not for nr-axSpA.

The committee based its decision on the results of the nr-axSpA study within the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial, recently reported at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

The nr-axSpA study met the primary endpoint of a 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) and the first 12 of 14 ranked secondary endpoints, according to AbbVie.

The most commonly reported adverse reactions with upadacitinib 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infections, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels, elevated alanine transaminase levels, bronchitis, nausea, cough, elevated aspartate transaminase levels, and hypercholesterolemia. These occurred in 2% or more of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in clinical trials.

The safety profile of upadacitinib with long-term treatment was generally similar to the safety profile during the placebo-controlled period across indications, AbbVie said.

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

Upadacitinib may soon be used for the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave it its stamp of approval.

AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 27 that the committee approved the use on June 23. The recommendation to approve market authorization for upadacitinib for nr-axSpA now goes to the European Commission, which is expected to make a decision by the third quarter of 2022.

“The CHMP’s recommendation to approve upadacitinib for patients with nr-axSpA is an important milestone in providing a new treatment option to patients in need,” said Neil Gallagher, MD, vice president of development and chief medical officer of AbbVie. He noted that currently, there are few options to treat symptoms such as inflammation, back pain, and stiffness for these patients.

Officially, the new indication for upadacitinib (Rinvoq) 15 mg once daily is for the treatment of active nr-axSpA in adult patients with objective signs of inflammation, as indicated by elevated C-reactive protein and/or MRI, whose condition has responded inadequately to NSAIDs.

Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor that in human cellular assays preferentially inhibits signaling by JAK1 or JAK1/3.

In the European Union, upadacitinib is currently approved for use in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In addition to these indications, it is approved in the United States for ulcerative colitis but not for nr-axSpA.

The committee based its decision on the results of the nr-axSpA study within the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial, recently reported at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

The nr-axSpA study met the primary endpoint of a 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) and the first 12 of 14 ranked secondary endpoints, according to AbbVie.

The most commonly reported adverse reactions with upadacitinib 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infections, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels, elevated alanine transaminase levels, bronchitis, nausea, cough, elevated aspartate transaminase levels, and hypercholesterolemia. These occurred in 2% or more of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in clinical trials.

The safety profile of upadacitinib with long-term treatment was generally similar to the safety profile during the placebo-controlled period across indications, AbbVie said.

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

Upadacitinib may soon be used for the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave it its stamp of approval.

AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 27 that the committee approved the use on June 23. The recommendation to approve market authorization for upadacitinib for nr-axSpA now goes to the European Commission, which is expected to make a decision by the third quarter of 2022.

“The CHMP’s recommendation to approve upadacitinib for patients with nr-axSpA is an important milestone in providing a new treatment option to patients in need,” said Neil Gallagher, MD, vice president of development and chief medical officer of AbbVie. He noted that currently, there are few options to treat symptoms such as inflammation, back pain, and stiffness for these patients.

Officially, the new indication for upadacitinib (Rinvoq) 15 mg once daily is for the treatment of active nr-axSpA in adult patients with objective signs of inflammation, as indicated by elevated C-reactive protein and/or MRI, whose condition has responded inadequately to NSAIDs.

Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor that in human cellular assays preferentially inhibits signaling by JAK1 or JAK1/3.

In the European Union, upadacitinib is currently approved for use in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In addition to these indications, it is approved in the United States for ulcerative colitis but not for nr-axSpA.

The committee based its decision on the results of the nr-axSpA study within the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial, recently reported at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

The nr-axSpA study met the primary endpoint of a 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) and the first 12 of 14 ranked secondary endpoints, according to AbbVie.

The most commonly reported adverse reactions with upadacitinib 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infections, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels, elevated alanine transaminase levels, bronchitis, nausea, cough, elevated aspartate transaminase levels, and hypercholesterolemia. These occurred in 2% or more of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in clinical trials.

The safety profile of upadacitinib with long-term treatment was generally similar to the safety profile during the placebo-controlled period across indications, AbbVie said.

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

Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.

“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”

The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”

Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’

A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.

At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.

The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).

The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).

Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.

Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.

“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”

The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.

“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.

The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.

“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”

This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.

“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”

The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”

Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’

A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.

At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.

The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).

The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).

Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.

Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.

“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”

The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.

“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.

The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.

“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”

This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.

“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”

The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).

Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”

Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’

A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.

At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.

The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).

The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).

Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.

Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.

“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”

The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.

“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.

The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.

“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”

This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.

“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”

Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.

Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.

The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.

Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.

Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.

Clear differences in MRI markers

“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.

The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).

“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.

Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.

“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.

DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.

Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
 

‘Remarkably different’ results

“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).

EULAR

Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.

Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.

“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”

Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”

However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”

Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”

Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.

“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.

However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”

Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.

MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.

“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”

Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.

Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.

The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.

Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.

Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.

Clear differences in MRI markers

“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.

The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).

“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.

Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.

“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.

DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.

Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
 

‘Remarkably different’ results

“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).

EULAR

Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.

Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.

“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”

Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”

However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”

Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”

Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.

“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.

However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”

Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.

MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.

Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.

“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”

Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.

Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.

The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.

Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.

Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.

Clear differences in MRI markers

“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.

The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).

“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.

Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.

“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.

DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.

Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
 

‘Remarkably different’ results

“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).

EULAR

Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.

Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.

“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”

Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”

However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”

Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”

Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.

“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.

However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”

Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.

COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.

At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

IL-17 inhibitor times 2

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.

Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
 

All endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).

All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.

Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.

In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).

The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.

Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.

‘Promising results’

Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.

“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.

At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

IL-17 inhibitor times 2

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.

Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
 

All endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).

All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.

Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.

In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).

The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.

Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.

‘Promising results’

Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.

“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.

At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
 

IL-17 inhibitor times 2

Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.

The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.

Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
 

All endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).

All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.

Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.

In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).

The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.

Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.

‘Promising results’

Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.

“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”

The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

COPENHAGEN – European recommendations and overarching principles for the management of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) have remained largely unchanged since 2016 – with a few notable but very important exceptions.

The 2022 updated recommendations include a new point regarding which biologic agents to use for patients with recurrent uveitis, active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), or significant psoriasis, as well as new advice to reevaluate the diagnosis and consider the presence of comorbidities if the disease doesn’t respond to current therapies, reported Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, from Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.

She summarized the 2022 updates at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of colleagues in the ASAS (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society)/EULAR committee.

Among other significant updates are a recommendation for managing patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, and a recommendation as to what to do when a first biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) fails, Dr. Ramiro said at the meeting.

“Although we have more changes in the pharmacological part, I would like to emphasize the importance of nonpharmacological treatment in axial SpA,” she said.

Overarching principles

The members of the committee that created the recommendations were in complete agreement that axSpA, as they state in the overarching principles, “is a potentially severe disease with diverse manifestations, usually requiring multidisciplinary management coordinated by the rheumatologist.”

They also universally acknowledged that “the primary goal of treating the patient with axSpA is to maximize health-related quality of life through control of symptoms and inflammation, prevention of progressive structural damage, preservation/normalization of function, and social participation.”

The overarching principles include the aforementioned emphasis on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management, shared decision-making between patients and rheumatologists, and awareness of the potential financial toxicities and societal problems that patients face.

A closer look: New recommendations

As noted before, there are two new recommendations since the 2016 iteration.

Recommendation No. 10 states, “If there is a history of recurrent uveitis or active IBD, preference should be given to a monoclonal antibody against TNF-alpha [tumor necrosis factor–alpha]. For patients with significant psoriasis, an IL-17 [interleukin-17] inhibitor may be preferred.”

This recommendation stipulates that it refers only to IL-17A inhibitors.

The other new recommendation, No. 11, seems like plain common sense. It states, “Absence of response to treatment should trigger reevaluation of the diagnosis and consideration of the presence of comorbidities.”

Revised recommendations

The two significantly revised recommendations deal with drug therapy.

Recommendation No. 9 holds that for patients with persistently high disease activity despite conventional therapy, a TNF inhibitor, including the pegylated humanized antigen-binding fragment certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), an IL-17 inhibitor, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, should be considered.

Recommendation No. 12 states that if the first biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD fails, switching to another biologic DMARD (TNF inhibitor or IL-17 inhibitor) or JAK inhibitor should be considered.

Transatlantic similarities, differences

Lianne Gensler, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who served on the committee that developed the 2019 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axSpA, said that, while there are similarities between some of the recommendations promulgated on each side of the Atlantic, there are significant differences and even opposing viewpoints.

A primary difference between the two is the methodology used to arrive at the recommendations in the first place, she said in an interview with this news organization.

“ACR uses a very robust approach to guideline development, where each question is addressed by a ‘PICO’ ” population, intervention, control, and outcomes – and that’s good if you have good evidence, but sometimes – often, in fact – we don’t have strong evidence that would lead everyone to choose the same approach every time, and that’s true especially in inflammatory arthritis, where there’s a lot of shared decision-making, so many of the recommendations out of ACR are conditional,” she said.

In contrast, the ASAS/EULAR recommendations are based largely on broader levels of evidence and on consensus. In developing the European recommendations, the authors were able to take into account drugs that were newly approved since the 2019 ACR guidelines were issued, she noted.

Although many of the broader recommendations are similar, they diverge when it comes to specific issues, such as whether to treat to target.

“ACR guidelines say, ‘Do not treat to target.’ EULAR guidelines say it’s okay to treat to target. ACR guidelines made that decision because at that time, there was no treat-to-target data,” Dr, Gensler said.

“I think, as rheumatologists, we always want to aim for a goal in a patient, so it’s not unreasonable, but I think we shouldn’t attach too much to a number,” she said.

Another difference is that the ACR guidelines recommend against switching to a biosimilar agent when a patient’s condition is stable with the originator biologic.

Dr. Gensler said that she particularly appreciated the new EULAR recommendation (No. 11) to reconsider the diagnosis for patients for whom therapies have failed.

“The sense that nonresponse means ongoing disease activity and therefore drug escalation or change needs to happen is not always the right answer,” she said.

The process for developing the recommendations was supported by EULAR. Dr. Ramiro has received research grants and consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Gensler has received research grant support from Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has consulting relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MoonLake, Novartis, and Pfizer.

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

COPENHAGEN – The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with significant improvements in disease activity, pain, function, and quality of life, compared with placebo, in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), results of the first efficacy analysis of the phase 3, randomized SELECT-AXIS-2 trial showed.

The trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS 40) response criteria in the prespecified efficacy analysis at week 14, reported Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Ghent (Belgium) University.

In all, 45% of patients randomized to receive upadacitinib achieved an ASAS 40, compared with 23% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).

“This is the first study showing efficacy and showing that the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib might be a therapeutic option in patients with active, nonradiographic spondyloarthritis,” Van den Bosch said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although JAK inhibitors have previously been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial is the first to evaluate a JAK inhibitor in nonradiographic axSpA, he added.
 

Study details

Patients 18 years and older with rheumatologist-diagnosed nr-axSpA were eligible for the study if they also met 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but not the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria; had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein above the upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening; and had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and patient-assessment of total back pain scores of 4 or greater based on a 0-10 numeric rating scale at study entry.

Patients were screened with MRI imaging of the spine and x-rays of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and then randomized to receive either placebo (157 patients) or upadacitinib 15 mg daily (158 patients) for 52 weeks. At the end of 52 weeks, all patients on upadacitinib will continue on the drug at the same dose level, and those assigned to placebo will be switched over to 15 mg upadacitinib daily maintenance.

As well as meeting the primary endpoint at week 14, response rates with the JAK inhibitor were higher at all time points over this initial time period, Dr. Van den Bosch noted.
 

Most targets hit

Of 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, 12 were statistically better with upadacitinib, including change from baseline in patient’s assessment of total back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Low Disease Activity, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score for sacroiliac joints.

Only the BASDAI and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score were not significantly better with the JAK inhibitor.

The safety of upadacitinib in this setting was consistent with its known safety profile, Dr. Van den Bosch said.

Approximately half of all patients in each trial arm had an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in four patients assigned to upadacitinib versus two on placebo, and serious adverse events requiring drug discontinuation occurred in two and four patients, respectively.
 

‘Important’ data

Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charite University Hospital, Berlin, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were not surprising.

“We know the efficacy of upadacitinib already in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and from all the other drugs that we also know that are effective in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis that are similarly effective in nonradiographic disease,” he said.

“I think it is really important because it is the first data on JAK inhibition also in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis – an important step,” said Dr. Proft, who was comoderator of the oral abstract session where Van den Bosch reported the data.

The trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie and others. Dr. Proft disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie as well.

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

COPENHAGEN – The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with significant improvements in disease activity, pain, function, and quality of life, compared with placebo, in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), results of the first efficacy analysis of the phase 3, randomized SELECT-AXIS-2 trial showed.

The trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS 40) response criteria in the prespecified efficacy analysis at week 14, reported Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Ghent (Belgium) University.

In all, 45% of patients randomized to receive upadacitinib achieved an ASAS 40, compared with 23% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).

“This is the first study showing efficacy and showing that the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib might be a therapeutic option in patients with active, nonradiographic spondyloarthritis,” Van den Bosch said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although JAK inhibitors have previously been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial is the first to evaluate a JAK inhibitor in nonradiographic axSpA, he added.
 

Study details

Patients 18 years and older with rheumatologist-diagnosed nr-axSpA were eligible for the study if they also met 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but not the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria; had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein above the upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening; and had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and patient-assessment of total back pain scores of 4 or greater based on a 0-10 numeric rating scale at study entry.

Patients were screened with MRI imaging of the spine and x-rays of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and then randomized to receive either placebo (157 patients) or upadacitinib 15 mg daily (158 patients) for 52 weeks. At the end of 52 weeks, all patients on upadacitinib will continue on the drug at the same dose level, and those assigned to placebo will be switched over to 15 mg upadacitinib daily maintenance.

As well as meeting the primary endpoint at week 14, response rates with the JAK inhibitor were higher at all time points over this initial time period, Dr. Van den Bosch noted.
 

Most targets hit

Of 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, 12 were statistically better with upadacitinib, including change from baseline in patient’s assessment of total back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Low Disease Activity, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score for sacroiliac joints.

Only the BASDAI and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score were not significantly better with the JAK inhibitor.

The safety of upadacitinib in this setting was consistent with its known safety profile, Dr. Van den Bosch said.

Approximately half of all patients in each trial arm had an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in four patients assigned to upadacitinib versus two on placebo, and serious adverse events requiring drug discontinuation occurred in two and four patients, respectively.
 

‘Important’ data

Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charite University Hospital, Berlin, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were not surprising.

“We know the efficacy of upadacitinib already in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and from all the other drugs that we also know that are effective in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis that are similarly effective in nonradiographic disease,” he said.

“I think it is really important because it is the first data on JAK inhibition also in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis – an important step,” said Dr. Proft, who was comoderator of the oral abstract session where Van den Bosch reported the data.

The trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie and others. Dr. Proft disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie as well.

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

COPENHAGEN – The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with significant improvements in disease activity, pain, function, and quality of life, compared with placebo, in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), results of the first efficacy analysis of the phase 3, randomized SELECT-AXIS-2 trial showed.

The trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS 40) response criteria in the prespecified efficacy analysis at week 14, reported Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Ghent (Belgium) University.

In all, 45% of patients randomized to receive upadacitinib achieved an ASAS 40, compared with 23% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).

“This is the first study showing efficacy and showing that the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib might be a therapeutic option in patients with active, nonradiographic spondyloarthritis,” Van den Bosch said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although JAK inhibitors have previously been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial is the first to evaluate a JAK inhibitor in nonradiographic axSpA, he added.
 

Study details

Patients 18 years and older with rheumatologist-diagnosed nr-axSpA were eligible for the study if they also met 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but not the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria; had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein above the upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening; and had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and patient-assessment of total back pain scores of 4 or greater based on a 0-10 numeric rating scale at study entry.

Patients were screened with MRI imaging of the spine and x-rays of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and then randomized to receive either placebo (157 patients) or upadacitinib 15 mg daily (158 patients) for 52 weeks. At the end of 52 weeks, all patients on upadacitinib will continue on the drug at the same dose level, and those assigned to placebo will be switched over to 15 mg upadacitinib daily maintenance.

As well as meeting the primary endpoint at week 14, response rates with the JAK inhibitor were higher at all time points over this initial time period, Dr. Van den Bosch noted.
 

Most targets hit

Of 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, 12 were statistically better with upadacitinib, including change from baseline in patient’s assessment of total back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Low Disease Activity, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score for sacroiliac joints.

Only the BASDAI and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score were not significantly better with the JAK inhibitor.

The safety of upadacitinib in this setting was consistent with its known safety profile, Dr. Van den Bosch said.

Approximately half of all patients in each trial arm had an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in four patients assigned to upadacitinib versus two on placebo, and serious adverse events requiring drug discontinuation occurred in two and four patients, respectively.
 

‘Important’ data

Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charite University Hospital, Berlin, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were not surprising.

“We know the efficacy of upadacitinib already in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and from all the other drugs that we also know that are effective in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis that are similarly effective in nonradiographic disease,” he said.

“I think it is really important because it is the first data on JAK inhibition also in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis – an important step,” said Dr. Proft, who was comoderator of the oral abstract session where Van den Bosch reported the data.

The trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie and others. Dr. Proft disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie as well.

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