User login
Finding HBV ‘cure’ may mean going ‘back to the drawing board’
LONDON – Achieving a functional cure for hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not going to be easily achieved with the drugs that are currently in development, according to a presentation at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
“Intriguing results have been presented at ILC 2022 that must be carefully interpreted,” said Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, of Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France, during the viral hepatitis highlights session on the closing day of the meeting.
“New HBV drug development looks more complicated than initially expected and its goals and strategies need to be redefined and refocused,” he added
“This is really something that came from the discussions we had during the sessions but also in the corridors,” Dr. Pawlotsky added. “We know it’s going to be difficult; we have to reset, restart – not from zero, but from not much – and revise our strategy,” he suggested.
There are many new drugs under investigation for HBV, Dr. Pawlotsky said, noting that the number of studies being presented at the meeting was reminiscent of the flurry of activity before a functional cure for hepatitis C had been found. “It’s good to see that this is happening again for HBV,” he said.
Indeed, there are many new direct-acting antiviral agents, immunomodulatory, or other approaches being tested, and some of the more advanced studies are “teaching us a few things and probably raising more questions than getting answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said.
The B-CLEAR study
One these studies is the phase 2b B-CLEAR study presented during the late-breaker session. This study involved bepirovirsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, and tested its efficacy and safety in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were either on or off stable nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA/NUC) therapy.
A similar proportion (28% and 29%, respectively) of patients achieved an hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the lower limit of quantification at the end of 24 weeks treatment. However, the effect on HBsAg varied according to the treatment arm, with changes to the dosing or switching to placebo indicating that the effect might wane when the treatment is stopped or if the dose is reduced.
“Interestingly, ALT elevations were observed in association with most HBsAg declines,” Dr. Pawlotsky pointed out. “I think we still have to determine whether this is good flare/bad flare, good sign/bad sign, of what is going to happen afterward.”
The REEF studies
Another approach highlighted was the combination of the silencing or small interfering RNA (siRNA) JNJ-3989 with the capsid assembly modulator (CAM) JNJ-6379 in the phase 2 REEF-1 and REEF-2 studies.
REEF-1, conducted in patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive or negative who were not treated with NA/NUC or were NA/NUC suppressed, showed a dose-dependent, but variable effect among individual patients as might be expected at the end of 48 weeks’ treatment. This was sustained at week 72, which was 24 weeks’ follow-up after stopping treatment.
However, pointed out Dr. Pawlotsky “I think the most important part of this is that if you add a CAM on top of the siRNA, you do not improve the effect on HBsAg levels.”
Then there is the REEF-2 study, testing the same combination but in only patients who were NA suppressed or HBeAg negative alongside standard NA/NUC therapy. As well as being the first novel combination treatment trial to report, this was essentially a stopping trial, Kosh Agarwal, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, MD, one of the study’s investigators explained separately at a media briefing.
Patients (n = 130) were treated for 48 weeks, then all treatment – including NA/NUC – was discontinued, with 48 weeks of follow-up after discontinuation, said Dr. Agarwal, who is a consultant hepatologist based at the Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College Hospital, London. He presented data from the first 24 week period after treatment had ended.
At the end of treatment, the combination had resulted in a mean reduction in HBsAg of 1.89 log10 IU/mL versus a reduction of 0.06 for the NA/NUC-only group, which acted as the control group in this trial. But “no patient in this study lost their surface antigen, i.e., were cured of their hepatitis B in the active arm or in the control arm,” Dr. Agarwal said.
“We didn’t achieve a cure, but a significant proportion were in a ‘controlled’ viral stage,” said Dr. Agarwal. Indeed, during his presentation of the findings, he showed that HBsAg inhibition was maintained in the majority (72%) of patients after stopping the combination.
While the trial’s primary endpoint wasn’t met, “it’s a really important study,” said Dr. Agarwal. “This [study] was fulfilled and delivered in the COVID era, so a lot of patients were looked after very carefully by sites in Europe,” he observed.
Further follow-up from the trial is expected, and Dr. Agarwal said that the subsequent discussion will “take us back to the drawing board to think about whether we need better antiviral treatments or whether we need to think about different combinations, and whether actually stopping treatment with every treatment is the right strategy to take.”
Both Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Pawlotsky flagged up the case of one patient in the trial who had been in the control arm and had experienced severe HBV reactivation that required a liver transplant.
“This patient is a warning signal,” Dr. Pawlotsky suggested in his talk. “When we think about NUC stopping, we have to think about the potential benefit in terms of HbsAg loss but also the potential risks.”
While Dr. Agarwal had noted that it highlights that “careful design of retreatment criteria is important in studies assessing the NA/NUC-stopping concept”.
Monoclonal antibody shows promise
Other combinations could involve an siRNA and an immunomodulatory agent and, during the poster sessions at the meeting, Dr. Agarwal also presented data from an ongoing phase 1 study with a novel, neutralizing monoclonal antibody called VIR-3434.
This monoclonal antibody is novel because it is thought to have several modes of action, first by binding to HBV and affecting its entry into liver cells, then by presenting the virus to T cells and stimulating a ‘vaccinal’ or immune effect, and then by helping the with the clearance of HBsAg and delivery of the virus to dendritic cells.
In the study, single doses of VIR-3434 were found to be well tolerated and to produce rapid reductions in HBsAg, with the highest dose used (300 mg) producing the greatest and most durable effect up to week 8.
VIR-3434 is also being tested in combination with other drugs in the phase 2 MARCH trial. One of these combinations is VIR-3434 together with an investigational siRNA dubbed VIR-2218. Preclinical work presented at ILC 2022 suggests that this combination appears to be capable of reducing HBsAg to a greater extent than using either agent alone.
Rethinking the strategy to get to a cure
Of course, VIR-3434 is one of several immunomodulatory compounds in development. There are therapeutic vaccines, drugs targeting the innate immune response, other monoclonal antibodies, T-cell receptors, checkpoint inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors. Then there are other compounds such as entry inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, and farnesoid X receptor agonists.
“I finish this meeting with more questions than answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said. “What is the right target to enhance specific anti-HBV immunity? Does in vivo induction of immune responses translate into any beneficial effect on HBV infection? Will therapeutic vaccines every work in a viral infection?”
Moreover, he asked, “how can we avoid the side effect of enhancing multiple and complex nonspecific immune responses? Are treatment-induced flares good flares or bad flares? All of these are questions that are really unanswered and that we’ll have to get answers to in the near future.”
The B-CLEAR study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The REEF-2 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The VIR-3434 studies were funded by Vir Biotechnology. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support, acted as a consultant, adviser, or speaker, and participated in advisory boards for multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This news organization was unable to verify Dr. Agarwal’s ties to Vir Biotechnology, but he presented one of the posters on VIR-3434 at the meeting and has been involved in the phase 1 study that was reported.
LONDON – Achieving a functional cure for hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not going to be easily achieved with the drugs that are currently in development, according to a presentation at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
“Intriguing results have been presented at ILC 2022 that must be carefully interpreted,” said Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, of Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France, during the viral hepatitis highlights session on the closing day of the meeting.
“New HBV drug development looks more complicated than initially expected and its goals and strategies need to be redefined and refocused,” he added
“This is really something that came from the discussions we had during the sessions but also in the corridors,” Dr. Pawlotsky added. “We know it’s going to be difficult; we have to reset, restart – not from zero, but from not much – and revise our strategy,” he suggested.
There are many new drugs under investigation for HBV, Dr. Pawlotsky said, noting that the number of studies being presented at the meeting was reminiscent of the flurry of activity before a functional cure for hepatitis C had been found. “It’s good to see that this is happening again for HBV,” he said.
Indeed, there are many new direct-acting antiviral agents, immunomodulatory, or other approaches being tested, and some of the more advanced studies are “teaching us a few things and probably raising more questions than getting answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said.
The B-CLEAR study
One these studies is the phase 2b B-CLEAR study presented during the late-breaker session. This study involved bepirovirsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, and tested its efficacy and safety in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were either on or off stable nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA/NUC) therapy.
A similar proportion (28% and 29%, respectively) of patients achieved an hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the lower limit of quantification at the end of 24 weeks treatment. However, the effect on HBsAg varied according to the treatment arm, with changes to the dosing or switching to placebo indicating that the effect might wane when the treatment is stopped or if the dose is reduced.
“Interestingly, ALT elevations were observed in association with most HBsAg declines,” Dr. Pawlotsky pointed out. “I think we still have to determine whether this is good flare/bad flare, good sign/bad sign, of what is going to happen afterward.”
The REEF studies
Another approach highlighted was the combination of the silencing or small interfering RNA (siRNA) JNJ-3989 with the capsid assembly modulator (CAM) JNJ-6379 in the phase 2 REEF-1 and REEF-2 studies.
REEF-1, conducted in patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive or negative who were not treated with NA/NUC or were NA/NUC suppressed, showed a dose-dependent, but variable effect among individual patients as might be expected at the end of 48 weeks’ treatment. This was sustained at week 72, which was 24 weeks’ follow-up after stopping treatment.
However, pointed out Dr. Pawlotsky “I think the most important part of this is that if you add a CAM on top of the siRNA, you do not improve the effect on HBsAg levels.”
Then there is the REEF-2 study, testing the same combination but in only patients who were NA suppressed or HBeAg negative alongside standard NA/NUC therapy. As well as being the first novel combination treatment trial to report, this was essentially a stopping trial, Kosh Agarwal, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, MD, one of the study’s investigators explained separately at a media briefing.
Patients (n = 130) were treated for 48 weeks, then all treatment – including NA/NUC – was discontinued, with 48 weeks of follow-up after discontinuation, said Dr. Agarwal, who is a consultant hepatologist based at the Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College Hospital, London. He presented data from the first 24 week period after treatment had ended.
At the end of treatment, the combination had resulted in a mean reduction in HBsAg of 1.89 log10 IU/mL versus a reduction of 0.06 for the NA/NUC-only group, which acted as the control group in this trial. But “no patient in this study lost their surface antigen, i.e., were cured of their hepatitis B in the active arm or in the control arm,” Dr. Agarwal said.
“We didn’t achieve a cure, but a significant proportion were in a ‘controlled’ viral stage,” said Dr. Agarwal. Indeed, during his presentation of the findings, he showed that HBsAg inhibition was maintained in the majority (72%) of patients after stopping the combination.
While the trial’s primary endpoint wasn’t met, “it’s a really important study,” said Dr. Agarwal. “This [study] was fulfilled and delivered in the COVID era, so a lot of patients were looked after very carefully by sites in Europe,” he observed.
Further follow-up from the trial is expected, and Dr. Agarwal said that the subsequent discussion will “take us back to the drawing board to think about whether we need better antiviral treatments or whether we need to think about different combinations, and whether actually stopping treatment with every treatment is the right strategy to take.”
Both Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Pawlotsky flagged up the case of one patient in the trial who had been in the control arm and had experienced severe HBV reactivation that required a liver transplant.
“This patient is a warning signal,” Dr. Pawlotsky suggested in his talk. “When we think about NUC stopping, we have to think about the potential benefit in terms of HbsAg loss but also the potential risks.”
While Dr. Agarwal had noted that it highlights that “careful design of retreatment criteria is important in studies assessing the NA/NUC-stopping concept”.
Monoclonal antibody shows promise
Other combinations could involve an siRNA and an immunomodulatory agent and, during the poster sessions at the meeting, Dr. Agarwal also presented data from an ongoing phase 1 study with a novel, neutralizing monoclonal antibody called VIR-3434.
This monoclonal antibody is novel because it is thought to have several modes of action, first by binding to HBV and affecting its entry into liver cells, then by presenting the virus to T cells and stimulating a ‘vaccinal’ or immune effect, and then by helping the with the clearance of HBsAg and delivery of the virus to dendritic cells.
In the study, single doses of VIR-3434 were found to be well tolerated and to produce rapid reductions in HBsAg, with the highest dose used (300 mg) producing the greatest and most durable effect up to week 8.
VIR-3434 is also being tested in combination with other drugs in the phase 2 MARCH trial. One of these combinations is VIR-3434 together with an investigational siRNA dubbed VIR-2218. Preclinical work presented at ILC 2022 suggests that this combination appears to be capable of reducing HBsAg to a greater extent than using either agent alone.
Rethinking the strategy to get to a cure
Of course, VIR-3434 is one of several immunomodulatory compounds in development. There are therapeutic vaccines, drugs targeting the innate immune response, other monoclonal antibodies, T-cell receptors, checkpoint inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors. Then there are other compounds such as entry inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, and farnesoid X receptor agonists.
“I finish this meeting with more questions than answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said. “What is the right target to enhance specific anti-HBV immunity? Does in vivo induction of immune responses translate into any beneficial effect on HBV infection? Will therapeutic vaccines every work in a viral infection?”
Moreover, he asked, “how can we avoid the side effect of enhancing multiple and complex nonspecific immune responses? Are treatment-induced flares good flares or bad flares? All of these are questions that are really unanswered and that we’ll have to get answers to in the near future.”
The B-CLEAR study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The REEF-2 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The VIR-3434 studies were funded by Vir Biotechnology. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support, acted as a consultant, adviser, or speaker, and participated in advisory boards for multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This news organization was unable to verify Dr. Agarwal’s ties to Vir Biotechnology, but he presented one of the posters on VIR-3434 at the meeting and has been involved in the phase 1 study that was reported.
LONDON – Achieving a functional cure for hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not going to be easily achieved with the drugs that are currently in development, according to a presentation at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
“Intriguing results have been presented at ILC 2022 that must be carefully interpreted,” said Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, of Henri Mondor Hospital in Créteil, France, during the viral hepatitis highlights session on the closing day of the meeting.
“New HBV drug development looks more complicated than initially expected and its goals and strategies need to be redefined and refocused,” he added
“This is really something that came from the discussions we had during the sessions but also in the corridors,” Dr. Pawlotsky added. “We know it’s going to be difficult; we have to reset, restart – not from zero, but from not much – and revise our strategy,” he suggested.
There are many new drugs under investigation for HBV, Dr. Pawlotsky said, noting that the number of studies being presented at the meeting was reminiscent of the flurry of activity before a functional cure for hepatitis C had been found. “It’s good to see that this is happening again for HBV,” he said.
Indeed, there are many new direct-acting antiviral agents, immunomodulatory, or other approaches being tested, and some of the more advanced studies are “teaching us a few things and probably raising more questions than getting answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said.
The B-CLEAR study
One these studies is the phase 2b B-CLEAR study presented during the late-breaker session. This study involved bepirovirsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, and tested its efficacy and safety in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection who were either on or off stable nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA/NUC) therapy.
A similar proportion (28% and 29%, respectively) of patients achieved an hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level below the lower limit of quantification at the end of 24 weeks treatment. However, the effect on HBsAg varied according to the treatment arm, with changes to the dosing or switching to placebo indicating that the effect might wane when the treatment is stopped or if the dose is reduced.
“Interestingly, ALT elevations were observed in association with most HBsAg declines,” Dr. Pawlotsky pointed out. “I think we still have to determine whether this is good flare/bad flare, good sign/bad sign, of what is going to happen afterward.”
The REEF studies
Another approach highlighted was the combination of the silencing or small interfering RNA (siRNA) JNJ-3989 with the capsid assembly modulator (CAM) JNJ-6379 in the phase 2 REEF-1 and REEF-2 studies.
REEF-1, conducted in patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive or negative who were not treated with NA/NUC or were NA/NUC suppressed, showed a dose-dependent, but variable effect among individual patients as might be expected at the end of 48 weeks’ treatment. This was sustained at week 72, which was 24 weeks’ follow-up after stopping treatment.
However, pointed out Dr. Pawlotsky “I think the most important part of this is that if you add a CAM on top of the siRNA, you do not improve the effect on HBsAg levels.”
Then there is the REEF-2 study, testing the same combination but in only patients who were NA suppressed or HBeAg negative alongside standard NA/NUC therapy. As well as being the first novel combination treatment trial to report, this was essentially a stopping trial, Kosh Agarwal, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, MD, one of the study’s investigators explained separately at a media briefing.
Patients (n = 130) were treated for 48 weeks, then all treatment – including NA/NUC – was discontinued, with 48 weeks of follow-up after discontinuation, said Dr. Agarwal, who is a consultant hepatologist based at the Institute of Liver Studies at King’s College Hospital, London. He presented data from the first 24 week period after treatment had ended.
At the end of treatment, the combination had resulted in a mean reduction in HBsAg of 1.89 log10 IU/mL versus a reduction of 0.06 for the NA/NUC-only group, which acted as the control group in this trial. But “no patient in this study lost their surface antigen, i.e., were cured of their hepatitis B in the active arm or in the control arm,” Dr. Agarwal said.
“We didn’t achieve a cure, but a significant proportion were in a ‘controlled’ viral stage,” said Dr. Agarwal. Indeed, during his presentation of the findings, he showed that HBsAg inhibition was maintained in the majority (72%) of patients after stopping the combination.
While the trial’s primary endpoint wasn’t met, “it’s a really important study,” said Dr. Agarwal. “This [study] was fulfilled and delivered in the COVID era, so a lot of patients were looked after very carefully by sites in Europe,” he observed.
Further follow-up from the trial is expected, and Dr. Agarwal said that the subsequent discussion will “take us back to the drawing board to think about whether we need better antiviral treatments or whether we need to think about different combinations, and whether actually stopping treatment with every treatment is the right strategy to take.”
Both Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Pawlotsky flagged up the case of one patient in the trial who had been in the control arm and had experienced severe HBV reactivation that required a liver transplant.
“This patient is a warning signal,” Dr. Pawlotsky suggested in his talk. “When we think about NUC stopping, we have to think about the potential benefit in terms of HbsAg loss but also the potential risks.”
While Dr. Agarwal had noted that it highlights that “careful design of retreatment criteria is important in studies assessing the NA/NUC-stopping concept”.
Monoclonal antibody shows promise
Other combinations could involve an siRNA and an immunomodulatory agent and, during the poster sessions at the meeting, Dr. Agarwal also presented data from an ongoing phase 1 study with a novel, neutralizing monoclonal antibody called VIR-3434.
This monoclonal antibody is novel because it is thought to have several modes of action, first by binding to HBV and affecting its entry into liver cells, then by presenting the virus to T cells and stimulating a ‘vaccinal’ or immune effect, and then by helping the with the clearance of HBsAg and delivery of the virus to dendritic cells.
In the study, single doses of VIR-3434 were found to be well tolerated and to produce rapid reductions in HBsAg, with the highest dose used (300 mg) producing the greatest and most durable effect up to week 8.
VIR-3434 is also being tested in combination with other drugs in the phase 2 MARCH trial. One of these combinations is VIR-3434 together with an investigational siRNA dubbed VIR-2218. Preclinical work presented at ILC 2022 suggests that this combination appears to be capable of reducing HBsAg to a greater extent than using either agent alone.
Rethinking the strategy to get to a cure
Of course, VIR-3434 is one of several immunomodulatory compounds in development. There are therapeutic vaccines, drugs targeting the innate immune response, other monoclonal antibodies, T-cell receptors, checkpoint inhibitors and PD-L1 inhibitors. Then there are other compounds such as entry inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, and farnesoid X receptor agonists.
“I finish this meeting with more questions than answers,” Dr. Pawlotsky said. “What is the right target to enhance specific anti-HBV immunity? Does in vivo induction of immune responses translate into any beneficial effect on HBV infection? Will therapeutic vaccines every work in a viral infection?”
Moreover, he asked, “how can we avoid the side effect of enhancing multiple and complex nonspecific immune responses? Are treatment-induced flares good flares or bad flares? All of these are questions that are really unanswered and that we’ll have to get answers to in the near future.”
The B-CLEAR study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. The REEF-2 study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. The VIR-3434 studies were funded by Vir Biotechnology. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support, acted as a consultant, adviser, or speaker, and participated in advisory boards for multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This news organization was unable to verify Dr. Agarwal’s ties to Vir Biotechnology, but he presented one of the posters on VIR-3434 at the meeting and has been involved in the phase 1 study that was reported.
AT ILC 2022
Statins in NAFLD: Taking a closer look at benefits
LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.
Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.
The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.
“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.
“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
A rising problem that needs addressing
Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.
“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.
“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.
Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.
Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
Examining the connection
To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.
Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.
Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.
“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
Investigating mechanistic effects
Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.
“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.
To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.
“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.
Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.
An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?
“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.
“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.
Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.
“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”
As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.”
The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.
Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.
The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.
“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.
“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
A rising problem that needs addressing
Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.
“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.
“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.
Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.
Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
Examining the connection
To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.
Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.
Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.
“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
Investigating mechanistic effects
Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.
“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.
To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.
“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.
Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.
An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?
“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.
“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.
Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.
“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”
As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.”
The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.
Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.
The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.
“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.
“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
A rising problem that needs addressing
Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.
“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.
“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.
Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.
Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
Examining the connection
To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.
Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.
Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.
“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
Investigating mechanistic effects
Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.
“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.
To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.
“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.
Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.
An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?
“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.
“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.
Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.
“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”
As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.”
The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ILC 2022
Phase 3 data shows bulevirtide benefit in hepatitis D
LONDON – Bulevirtide may not just treat but perhaps be a potential cure for hepatitis D in some patients, as was suggested at the annual International Liver Congress.
Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that, after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA levels and normalized ALT levels.
“The good message for our patients is that the initial data of the smaller phase 2 trials will really be confirmed, so the drug works,” Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, said at a media briefing ahead of his presentation at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver .
“It induces a decline in viral load and, very importantly for us as hepatologists, liver enzymes normalize, this is really good news” added Dr. Wedemeyer, who is the clinic director of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
“This is really an almost historic moment for hepatology,” he said. “It’s the first time that these patients have an antiviral treatment; they are afraid of dying and now they have a hope.”
Giving his thoughts, Thomas Berg, MD, Secretary General of EASL, said: “We are entering into a golden age of hepatology science when it comes to viral hepatitis.
Dr. Berg, also of University Clinic Leipzig (Germany), added: “We have several million people worldwide living with viral hepatitis; we have a cure for hepatitis C but there’s no cure for hepatitis B or hepatitis D, so these data give me great hope that we have scientific momentum with us.”
Pivotal phase 3 study
The MYR301 trial is an important and pivotal study for bulevirtide, which is a first-in-class HDV entry inhibitor. While it was approved for use Europe in 2020 under the brand name Hepcludex, the drug remains investigational in the United States.
“We were really surprised that EMA [European Medicines Agency] went forward, granting approval because there was no alternative available at that time,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. That approval is conditional, however, and was based on the results of phase 2 studies with the proviso that further data needed would need to be provided. Hopefully, the phase 3 findings will mean that the drug will receive full official approval, he said.
Overall, 150 patients with chronic hepatitis D were recruited into the phase 3 study and randomized to receive one of two doses of bulevirtide (2 mg or 10 mg) for 144 weeks or delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by the higher dose of the drug until the remainder of the treatment period. Bulevirtide was given as once-daily subcutaneous injection.
The mean age of participants was 41 years, the majority (82.7%) were White, and just under half already had liver cirrhosis. For inclusion, Dr. Wedemeyer said that they had to have compensated cirrhosis.
Just over half had received prior interferon therapy and almost two-thirds were receiving concomitant nucleos(t)ide (NUC) treatment.
Key results
The primary endpoint was defined as a combination of decreased HDV RNA (defined as undetectable or a 2 log or greater decrease) and normalized ALT (defined as 3.1 U/L or less in women and 4.1 U/L or less in men). This was assessed after 48 weeks’ treatment and was achieved by 45% of participants given the 2-mg dose of bulevirtide, 48% of those given the 10-mg dose, and by 2% of those who had delayed treatment (P < .0001 for both doses, compared with delayed treatment).
The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients, including those with cirrhosis, Dr. Wedemeyer reported.
Looking at some of the secondary endpoints, he reported that, when considering only decreased HDV RNA, the rate of response was over 70% with both dose of bulevirtide at week 48, compared with just 4% for delayed treatment (P < .0001), although there was no significant difference in rates of undetectable HDV RNA between the two doses. ALT normalization rates were 51%-56% versus 12% for delayed treatment (P < .0001).
A further benefit was seen in liver stiffness, with values reduced by at least three points at week 48 with either dose of bulevirtide, compared with an increase of almost 1 point for delayed treatment.
As for side effects, one of the concerns for bulevirtide is an increase in serum bile acids, but when this occurred, it occurred early and remained steady over the course of treatment, with a less pronounced effect in the 2 mg–dosed group than the 10 mg–dosed group. There were no serious adverse reactions related to bulevirtide or any adverse event that led to stopping the drug.
“There are always questions that need to be answered,” Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged. Indeed, it’s unclear for how long patients need to be treated and if treatment with interferon is needed. In the phase 2 studies (MYR202 and MYR203), bulevirtide was given at the same time as pegylated interferon alpha (peg-IFNa) or tenofovir, whereas in the phase 3 MYR301 trial, it was given as monotherapy.
Real-world experience
“We have already some real-world data in parallel to this phase 3 trial,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. “So, for us in the hepatitis D field, it is a really exciting time; [it’s] completely novel data and game-changing for patients.”
“The results are similar to our real life study, but in our real-life study, we have some patients treated with interferon and some not treated with interferon,” Hélène Fontaine, MD, of Hôpital Cochin in Paris, observed in an interview.
She reported preliminary results from the prospective BuleDelta cohort, which showed a virologic response rate of 58% and ALT normalization in 46% of patients.
“Virologic response was achieved in more patients receiving bulevirtide in combination with interferon,” she said. Indeed, 84% of patient who received peg-IFNa versus 39% of those who did not achieved a virologic response. However, rates of ALT normalization were more frequent in those received bulevirtide monotherapy than in combination with peg-IFN1 (54% vs. 35%).
A greater benefit of combining bulevirtide with interferon therapy was also seen in another real-world study presented by Victor de Lédinghen, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. After 18 months of treatment, bulevirtide plus peg-IFNa was associated with undetectable HDV RNA in 57% of patients versus 33% of those given the drug as monotherapy.
“Of course, if you add interferon, it’s better than without but you cannot use interferon in all patients,” he observed in an interview.
Results are good but could be better, he suggested, noting that the results are dependent on patients injecting themselves correctly on a daily basis.
At the media briefing Dr. Wedemeyer also commented on how bulevirtide must be delivered.
“The only, let’s say, disadvantage is that it has to be injected because it’s a peptide, which requires daily injections, but patients managed very well,” Dr. Wedemeyer said.
“There is some evidence from single cases that we may stop treatment and that the virus does not come back,” he said, but stressed that patients should not stop treatment on their own as the risk is not known.
“For patients with advanced disease I consider this as a maintenance treatment,” Dr. Wedemeyer said, at least for the time being.
The MYR3201 study was funded by Gilead Sciences. The BuleDelta cohort is sponsored by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergencies. Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences and MYR as well as having ties to multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Berg, Dr. Fontaine, and Dr. de Lédinghen had no conflicts of interest to report.
LONDON – Bulevirtide may not just treat but perhaps be a potential cure for hepatitis D in some patients, as was suggested at the annual International Liver Congress.
Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that, after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA levels and normalized ALT levels.
“The good message for our patients is that the initial data of the smaller phase 2 trials will really be confirmed, so the drug works,” Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, said at a media briefing ahead of his presentation at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver .
“It induces a decline in viral load and, very importantly for us as hepatologists, liver enzymes normalize, this is really good news” added Dr. Wedemeyer, who is the clinic director of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
“This is really an almost historic moment for hepatology,” he said. “It’s the first time that these patients have an antiviral treatment; they are afraid of dying and now they have a hope.”
Giving his thoughts, Thomas Berg, MD, Secretary General of EASL, said: “We are entering into a golden age of hepatology science when it comes to viral hepatitis.
Dr. Berg, also of University Clinic Leipzig (Germany), added: “We have several million people worldwide living with viral hepatitis; we have a cure for hepatitis C but there’s no cure for hepatitis B or hepatitis D, so these data give me great hope that we have scientific momentum with us.”
Pivotal phase 3 study
The MYR301 trial is an important and pivotal study for bulevirtide, which is a first-in-class HDV entry inhibitor. While it was approved for use Europe in 2020 under the brand name Hepcludex, the drug remains investigational in the United States.
“We were really surprised that EMA [European Medicines Agency] went forward, granting approval because there was no alternative available at that time,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. That approval is conditional, however, and was based on the results of phase 2 studies with the proviso that further data needed would need to be provided. Hopefully, the phase 3 findings will mean that the drug will receive full official approval, he said.
Overall, 150 patients with chronic hepatitis D were recruited into the phase 3 study and randomized to receive one of two doses of bulevirtide (2 mg or 10 mg) for 144 weeks or delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by the higher dose of the drug until the remainder of the treatment period. Bulevirtide was given as once-daily subcutaneous injection.
The mean age of participants was 41 years, the majority (82.7%) were White, and just under half already had liver cirrhosis. For inclusion, Dr. Wedemeyer said that they had to have compensated cirrhosis.
Just over half had received prior interferon therapy and almost two-thirds were receiving concomitant nucleos(t)ide (NUC) treatment.
Key results
The primary endpoint was defined as a combination of decreased HDV RNA (defined as undetectable or a 2 log or greater decrease) and normalized ALT (defined as 3.1 U/L or less in women and 4.1 U/L or less in men). This was assessed after 48 weeks’ treatment and was achieved by 45% of participants given the 2-mg dose of bulevirtide, 48% of those given the 10-mg dose, and by 2% of those who had delayed treatment (P < .0001 for both doses, compared with delayed treatment).
The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients, including those with cirrhosis, Dr. Wedemeyer reported.
Looking at some of the secondary endpoints, he reported that, when considering only decreased HDV RNA, the rate of response was over 70% with both dose of bulevirtide at week 48, compared with just 4% for delayed treatment (P < .0001), although there was no significant difference in rates of undetectable HDV RNA between the two doses. ALT normalization rates were 51%-56% versus 12% for delayed treatment (P < .0001).
A further benefit was seen in liver stiffness, with values reduced by at least three points at week 48 with either dose of bulevirtide, compared with an increase of almost 1 point for delayed treatment.
As for side effects, one of the concerns for bulevirtide is an increase in serum bile acids, but when this occurred, it occurred early and remained steady over the course of treatment, with a less pronounced effect in the 2 mg–dosed group than the 10 mg–dosed group. There were no serious adverse reactions related to bulevirtide or any adverse event that led to stopping the drug.
“There are always questions that need to be answered,” Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged. Indeed, it’s unclear for how long patients need to be treated and if treatment with interferon is needed. In the phase 2 studies (MYR202 and MYR203), bulevirtide was given at the same time as pegylated interferon alpha (peg-IFNa) or tenofovir, whereas in the phase 3 MYR301 trial, it was given as monotherapy.
Real-world experience
“We have already some real-world data in parallel to this phase 3 trial,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. “So, for us in the hepatitis D field, it is a really exciting time; [it’s] completely novel data and game-changing for patients.”
“The results are similar to our real life study, but in our real-life study, we have some patients treated with interferon and some not treated with interferon,” Hélène Fontaine, MD, of Hôpital Cochin in Paris, observed in an interview.
She reported preliminary results from the prospective BuleDelta cohort, which showed a virologic response rate of 58% and ALT normalization in 46% of patients.
“Virologic response was achieved in more patients receiving bulevirtide in combination with interferon,” she said. Indeed, 84% of patient who received peg-IFNa versus 39% of those who did not achieved a virologic response. However, rates of ALT normalization were more frequent in those received bulevirtide monotherapy than in combination with peg-IFN1 (54% vs. 35%).
A greater benefit of combining bulevirtide with interferon therapy was also seen in another real-world study presented by Victor de Lédinghen, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. After 18 months of treatment, bulevirtide plus peg-IFNa was associated with undetectable HDV RNA in 57% of patients versus 33% of those given the drug as monotherapy.
“Of course, if you add interferon, it’s better than without but you cannot use interferon in all patients,” he observed in an interview.
Results are good but could be better, he suggested, noting that the results are dependent on patients injecting themselves correctly on a daily basis.
At the media briefing Dr. Wedemeyer also commented on how bulevirtide must be delivered.
“The only, let’s say, disadvantage is that it has to be injected because it’s a peptide, which requires daily injections, but patients managed very well,” Dr. Wedemeyer said.
“There is some evidence from single cases that we may stop treatment and that the virus does not come back,” he said, but stressed that patients should not stop treatment on their own as the risk is not known.
“For patients with advanced disease I consider this as a maintenance treatment,” Dr. Wedemeyer said, at least for the time being.
The MYR3201 study was funded by Gilead Sciences. The BuleDelta cohort is sponsored by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergencies. Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences and MYR as well as having ties to multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Berg, Dr. Fontaine, and Dr. de Lédinghen had no conflicts of interest to report.
LONDON – Bulevirtide may not just treat but perhaps be a potential cure for hepatitis D in some patients, as was suggested at the annual International Liver Congress.
Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that, after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA levels and normalized ALT levels.
“The good message for our patients is that the initial data of the smaller phase 2 trials will really be confirmed, so the drug works,” Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, said at a media briefing ahead of his presentation at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver .
“It induces a decline in viral load and, very importantly for us as hepatologists, liver enzymes normalize, this is really good news” added Dr. Wedemeyer, who is the clinic director of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
“This is really an almost historic moment for hepatology,” he said. “It’s the first time that these patients have an antiviral treatment; they are afraid of dying and now they have a hope.”
Giving his thoughts, Thomas Berg, MD, Secretary General of EASL, said: “We are entering into a golden age of hepatology science when it comes to viral hepatitis.
Dr. Berg, also of University Clinic Leipzig (Germany), added: “We have several million people worldwide living with viral hepatitis; we have a cure for hepatitis C but there’s no cure for hepatitis B or hepatitis D, so these data give me great hope that we have scientific momentum with us.”
Pivotal phase 3 study
The MYR301 trial is an important and pivotal study for bulevirtide, which is a first-in-class HDV entry inhibitor. While it was approved for use Europe in 2020 under the brand name Hepcludex, the drug remains investigational in the United States.
“We were really surprised that EMA [European Medicines Agency] went forward, granting approval because there was no alternative available at that time,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. That approval is conditional, however, and was based on the results of phase 2 studies with the proviso that further data needed would need to be provided. Hopefully, the phase 3 findings will mean that the drug will receive full official approval, he said.
Overall, 150 patients with chronic hepatitis D were recruited into the phase 3 study and randomized to receive one of two doses of bulevirtide (2 mg or 10 mg) for 144 weeks or delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by the higher dose of the drug until the remainder of the treatment period. Bulevirtide was given as once-daily subcutaneous injection.
The mean age of participants was 41 years, the majority (82.7%) were White, and just under half already had liver cirrhosis. For inclusion, Dr. Wedemeyer said that they had to have compensated cirrhosis.
Just over half had received prior interferon therapy and almost two-thirds were receiving concomitant nucleos(t)ide (NUC) treatment.
Key results
The primary endpoint was defined as a combination of decreased HDV RNA (defined as undetectable or a 2 log or greater decrease) and normalized ALT (defined as 3.1 U/L or less in women and 4.1 U/L or less in men). This was assessed after 48 weeks’ treatment and was achieved by 45% of participants given the 2-mg dose of bulevirtide, 48% of those given the 10-mg dose, and by 2% of those who had delayed treatment (P < .0001 for both doses, compared with delayed treatment).
The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients, including those with cirrhosis, Dr. Wedemeyer reported.
Looking at some of the secondary endpoints, he reported that, when considering only decreased HDV RNA, the rate of response was over 70% with both dose of bulevirtide at week 48, compared with just 4% for delayed treatment (P < .0001), although there was no significant difference in rates of undetectable HDV RNA between the two doses. ALT normalization rates were 51%-56% versus 12% for delayed treatment (P < .0001).
A further benefit was seen in liver stiffness, with values reduced by at least three points at week 48 with either dose of bulevirtide, compared with an increase of almost 1 point for delayed treatment.
As for side effects, one of the concerns for bulevirtide is an increase in serum bile acids, but when this occurred, it occurred early and remained steady over the course of treatment, with a less pronounced effect in the 2 mg–dosed group than the 10 mg–dosed group. There were no serious adverse reactions related to bulevirtide or any adverse event that led to stopping the drug.
“There are always questions that need to be answered,” Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged. Indeed, it’s unclear for how long patients need to be treated and if treatment with interferon is needed. In the phase 2 studies (MYR202 and MYR203), bulevirtide was given at the same time as pegylated interferon alpha (peg-IFNa) or tenofovir, whereas in the phase 3 MYR301 trial, it was given as monotherapy.
Real-world experience
“We have already some real-world data in parallel to this phase 3 trial,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. “So, for us in the hepatitis D field, it is a really exciting time; [it’s] completely novel data and game-changing for patients.”
“The results are similar to our real life study, but in our real-life study, we have some patients treated with interferon and some not treated with interferon,” Hélène Fontaine, MD, of Hôpital Cochin in Paris, observed in an interview.
She reported preliminary results from the prospective BuleDelta cohort, which showed a virologic response rate of 58% and ALT normalization in 46% of patients.
“Virologic response was achieved in more patients receiving bulevirtide in combination with interferon,” she said. Indeed, 84% of patient who received peg-IFNa versus 39% of those who did not achieved a virologic response. However, rates of ALT normalization were more frequent in those received bulevirtide monotherapy than in combination with peg-IFN1 (54% vs. 35%).
A greater benefit of combining bulevirtide with interferon therapy was also seen in another real-world study presented by Victor de Lédinghen, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. After 18 months of treatment, bulevirtide plus peg-IFNa was associated with undetectable HDV RNA in 57% of patients versus 33% of those given the drug as monotherapy.
“Of course, if you add interferon, it’s better than without but you cannot use interferon in all patients,” he observed in an interview.
Results are good but could be better, he suggested, noting that the results are dependent on patients injecting themselves correctly on a daily basis.
At the media briefing Dr. Wedemeyer also commented on how bulevirtide must be delivered.
“The only, let’s say, disadvantage is that it has to be injected because it’s a peptide, which requires daily injections, but patients managed very well,” Dr. Wedemeyer said.
“There is some evidence from single cases that we may stop treatment and that the virus does not come back,” he said, but stressed that patients should not stop treatment on their own as the risk is not known.
“For patients with advanced disease I consider this as a maintenance treatment,” Dr. Wedemeyer said, at least for the time being.
The MYR3201 study was funded by Gilead Sciences. The BuleDelta cohort is sponsored by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergencies. Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences and MYR as well as having ties to multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Berg, Dr. Fontaine, and Dr. de Lédinghen had no conflicts of interest to report.
AT ILC 2022
Pemvidutide promising for fatty liver disease
LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.
Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
Dual incretin effect
Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.
“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.
What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.
“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Weight loss results
The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.
Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m2 were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.
The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m2 across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.
Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.
All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.
The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
Lipid changes and liver fat reductions
Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.
“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”
Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.
Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.
As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.
During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”
Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.
“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.
Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.
LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.
Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
Dual incretin effect
Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.
“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.
What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.
“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Weight loss results
The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.
Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m2 were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.
The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m2 across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.
Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.
All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.
The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
Lipid changes and liver fat reductions
Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.
“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”
Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.
Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.
As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.
During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”
Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.
“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.
Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.
LONDON – Weight loss, lipid reductions, and “robust improvements” in lipid species associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were achieved in patients who were treated with pemvidutide in a first-in-human, phase 1 clinical trial reported at the annual International Liver Congress, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
The presenting study investigator, Stephen A. Harrison, MD, said that pemvidutide, which is also being developed for the treatment of obesity, appeared to be well tolerated. There were no serious or severe adverse events, and no patient had to discontinue treatment because of side effects.
Overall, “pemvidutide represents a promising new agent,” said Dr. Harrison, medical director of Pinnacle Research in San Antonio, Texas.
Dual incretin effect
Pemvidutide is a “balanced” dual agonist of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucagon, Dr. Harrison explained in his oral abstract.
“With glucagon, we are working to drive energy expenditure up, and with GLP-1, we’re decreasing food intake,” Dr. Harrison said.
What might set pemvidutide apart from other incretins lies within its structure, Dr. Harrison suggested. The structure has two main regions – one with greater GLP-1 specificity and the other with greater glucagon specificity, and these two areas are linked by a propriety technology called a EuPort™ domain. This is an area which allows the drug to bind to albumin, which increases its serum half-life and enables weekly dosing while slowing its entry into the bloodstream.
“Ultimately, we think that this has impacts, hypothetically, on tolerability and potentially mitigating the need for dose escalation,” said Dr. Harrison.
Weight loss results
The phase 1 study Dr. Harrison presented had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with single and multiple ascending doses (SAD/MAD) of pemvidutide being tested. He presented data on the MAD phase only, noting that the SAD phase had been used to determine what doses to use in the latter.
Seventy individuals with a body mass index of between 25 and 40 kg/m2 were recruited and 34 of these were enrolled in the MAD phase of the study. Three doses of pemvidutide were used, given subcutaneously once a week for 12 weeks: Seven participants received 1.2 mg, 9 were given 1.8 mg, 11 had 2.4 mg, and 7 subjects were treated with placebo. Dr. Harrison noted that there were no caloric restrictions in the trial and no lifestyle modifications or interventions.
The average age of study participants ranged from 27 to 35 years and the mean BMI was 30-31 kg/m2 across each group, with their lipid parameters in the upper range of normal.
Clear weight loss reductions were seen across all the pemvidutide groups versus placebo, with the greatest percentage changes in weight loss seen with the two higher doses used. At week 12, there was a 4.9%, 10.3% and 9.0% weight loss in the 1.2-mg, 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg pemvidutide groups compared to 1.6% in placebo-treated individuals.
All patients in the 1.8-mg group achieved a 5% or greater weight loss, Dr. Harrison observed, but there “was a plateauing” effect with the 2.4-mg dose with 89% of patients achieving this target. In comparison, a third of patients on the lowest dose and 20% of those on placebo achieved this target.
The trajectory of weight loss seen in the trial suggests that “the rate of weight loss would continue beyond 12 weeks if we were to continue the therapy” Dr. Harrison said.
Lipid changes and liver fat reductions
Levels of serum lipids from baseline to week 12 fell to a greater extent with pemvidutide treatment than with placebo, in the range of –27% for total cholesterol in the two highest dose groups, –25% for LDL-cholesterol for those groups, –37% for triglycerides for the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, and reductions in apolipoprotein B were seen.
“We saw an initial decline in HDL [high-density lipoprotein],” Dr. Harrison said, noting that “this is consistent with prior studies looking at rapid weight loss, and over time, this mitigates as you continue to treat at least based on other mechanisms of action or other drugs with similar mechanisms.”
Pemvidutide treatment was also associated with increased lipid oxidation and decreased lipid synthesis, and “there was a robust decrease in lipids implicated in NASH inflammation,” Dr. Harrison pointed out.
Importantly, in five of eight participants who had high levels of liver fat at baseline – defined as a 5% or greater magnetic resonance imaging–derived proton-density-fat-fraction (MRI-PDFF) – showed a decrease to undetectable limits (1.5% or less). This was a greater than 90% reduction in liver fat, Dr. Harrison said. All five patients were in the 1.8-mg and 2.4-mg groups.
As for side effects, these were “predominantly upper GI, with nausea and vomiting.” These were mild in most cases, but he pointed out that five patients treated with the 1.8-mg dose experienced moderate nausea and three experienced moderate vomiting. Mild diarrhea and constipation were also seen in two of patients given this dose but was not reported in any of the other groups.
During the discussion following the presentation, it was pointed out that there was no clear dose-dependent effect considering the 1.8-mg dose seemed to have a stronger effect in some areas than the 2.4-mg dose. That’s a fair point, Dr. Harrison responded, reiterating it was a small study with a short treatment duration, but that there did look like a plateauing effect, “at least in patients with a mean BMI of between 30 and 31.”
Dr. Harrison was asked about potential effects on insulin levels and if that was a worry because, if glucagon is stimulated, it could increase insulin. That in turn might encourage insulin resistance and promote worse outcomes.
“If you look outside of just this program, glucagon agonism has been dosed in a lot of patients over time, and we haven’t seen that,” Dr. Harrison replied. Pemvidutide is an agonist rather than antagonist, so perhaps the [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]–inducing effects seen before with glucagon antagonism won’t occur, he suggested.
Dr. Harrison disclosed ties to Altimmune (the study sponsor), Akero, Axcella, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cirius, CiVi Biopharma, Conatus, Corcept, CymaBay, Enyo, Galectin, Genentech, Genfit, Gilead, Hepion, Hightide, HistoIndex, Intercept, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Bio, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, NorthSea, Pfizer, Sagimet, Viking, and 89Bio.
AT ILC 2022
Novel liver-targeting drug offers hope for AAT deficiency
LONDON – The novel liver-targeting agent fazirsiran has fared well in a small, but significant, study looking at its ability to improve liver histology in adults with alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency.
Not only were serum and liver levels of the aberrant Z-AAT protein decreased, but also reductions in key liver enzymes were observed.
AAT is “a greatly understudied disease,” said study investigator Pavel Strnad, MD, who presented the results of the phase 2 AROAAT-2002 study at a meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We have a great candidate drug, but we will only be able to bring this drug into the clinic when we understand the disease much better, and for this I would like to ask all of you for your support,” he said to delegates at the meeting.
There is currently no pharmacological treatment for AAT, observed Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, who chaired the late-breaker session during which the study findings were presented.
“It is a rare disease, but it really does affect the patients who have it. So it would be great to have a therapeutic solution for these patients,” said Dr. Tsochatzis in an interview.
Dr. Tsochatzis, who is professor of hepatology and Consultant Hepatologist at the UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Royal Free Hospital in London, noted that AAT was associated with liver impairment, fibrosis and cirrhosis, and ultimately end-stage liver disease in which the only option for some patients would be a liver transplant.
“It depends on the stage; many patients are not at the stage that they require a liver transplant,” he said. “For those with significant liver disease, not yet at the cirrhosis stage, you might be able to intervene early and prevent them from progressing to needing a liver transplant.”
Dr. Tsochatzis speculated: “If this becomes an approved treatment, it is a breakthrough for patients.”
New hope for AAT deficiency
There is still a long way to go before fazirsiran is anywhere near ready for clinical use, but the early data presented by Dr. Strnad offer a glimpse that a treatment could be on the horizon.
Naturally occurring AAT is produced in the liver and is thought to play a role in protecting against lung damage via its antiprotease activity. However, mutations in the SERPINA1 gene coding for the AAT protein leads to loss-of-function pulmonary disease and gain-of-function liver disease.
“The PI ZZ [proteinase inhibitor ZZ] genotype occurs in about one in 2,500 to 3,500 Caucasians, so actually is pretty common, and a third of them may actually have a clinically significant liver fibrosis,” said Dr. Strnad.
As levels of Z-AAT accumulate in the liver this “presumably causes the liver toxicity,” he observed. So, the thinking is that stopping the production of this mutant protein might help to reduce liver damage and allow the liver to regenerate and repair itself.
Study details
To test out this theory, a phase 2, open-label study was performed in 16 patients with confirmed AAT deficiency, all of whom had the PI ZZ genotype.
Eight patients were treated with fazirsiran, also known as ARO-AAT, for 24 weeks (cohorts 1 and 1b), while the other eight were treated for 48 weeks (cohort 2); cohort 1 (n = 4) and cohort 2 (n = 8) received 200 mg, while cohort 1b (n = 4), which was added during the trial to evaluate dose response, received 100 mg. In all cases, fazirsiran was given as a subcutaneous injection on day 1, day 4, and then every 12 weeks. All patients had biopsies at baseline, then at either 24 weeks (cohorts 1/1b) or 48 weeks (cohort 2).
“We saw a dramatic reduction in Z-AAT both in serum and in liver biopsies,” Dr. Strnad reported. Indeed, reductions in Z-AAT were around 80%-88%, he said, with a median reduction of 83% at week 24 or 48 according to the published paper.
To illustrate the clear results, Dr. Strand showed a sample biopsy slide where globules of Z-AAT present at the initial assessment were “virtually gone after 48 weeks of treatment.”
“The change in the serum and hepatic Z-AAT levels translated into improvement in liver function tests,” said Dr. Strnad.
Alanine aminotransferase levels were normalized in all patients and there was “marked improvement” in gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) with the 200-mg dose of fazirsiran. Substantial changes in liver stiffness were recorded with the higher dose, –18% at 24 weeks and –15% at 48 weeks. There were also reductions in serum Pro-C3 of –36% and –17% at 52 weeks.
“Histological changes showed an improvement in liver inflammation and hepatocyte cell death in most of the patients,” Dr. Strnad said. He also noted that there were multiple cases where there was no change and a few where there was a deterioration.
Liver fibrosis was improved in seven of 12 patients given the highest dose of fazirsiran; however, there was no change in three patients and a worsening of 1 point or more in two patients. None of the three patients with evaluable biopsies who received 100 mg showed regression of fibrosis.
Stopping or rolling back fibrosis will be the final goal of proving clinical benefit in liver disease associated with AAT, Dr. Strnad and coinvestigators observe in their published paper, and while the changes seen so far with fazirsiran may not be uniform, they appear to be in the right direction.
Safety findings
”We didn’t see any drug discontinuation, dose interruption, or premature study withdrawals,” said Dr. Strnad.
“We had four different SAE [serious adverse events] which were kind of all over the place and did not seem to be related to treatment.” Those SAEs included viral myocarditis associated with Epstein-Barr virus infection, diverticulitis, dyspnea in a subject with a history of lung disease, and vestibular neuronitis after COVID-19 vaccination.
No significant safety signals were seen regarding lung function. Time will of course tell, he said in response to a question, but “our hope, our hypothesis, is that this will not change lung function dramatically.
“I would not expect any major things over a few years. Of course, whether this can lead to something over 20 years it is difficult to say.”
The current experience with fazirsiran looks good so far, but placebo-controlled, larger and longer studies are needed.
The study was funded by Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Strnad was an investigator in the study and acknowledged receipt of research funding via his institution from the company. Dr. Strnad also acknowledged paid and unpaid relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Alpha1 Deutschland, Alpha1 Global, CSL Behring, Grifols Biologicals, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda California. Dr. Tsochatzis, chaired the late-breaker session at ILC 2022 during which the study findings were presented, was not connected to the study, and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
LONDON – The novel liver-targeting agent fazirsiran has fared well in a small, but significant, study looking at its ability to improve liver histology in adults with alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency.
Not only were serum and liver levels of the aberrant Z-AAT protein decreased, but also reductions in key liver enzymes were observed.
AAT is “a greatly understudied disease,” said study investigator Pavel Strnad, MD, who presented the results of the phase 2 AROAAT-2002 study at a meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We have a great candidate drug, but we will only be able to bring this drug into the clinic when we understand the disease much better, and for this I would like to ask all of you for your support,” he said to delegates at the meeting.
There is currently no pharmacological treatment for AAT, observed Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, who chaired the late-breaker session during which the study findings were presented.
“It is a rare disease, but it really does affect the patients who have it. So it would be great to have a therapeutic solution for these patients,” said Dr. Tsochatzis in an interview.
Dr. Tsochatzis, who is professor of hepatology and Consultant Hepatologist at the UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Royal Free Hospital in London, noted that AAT was associated with liver impairment, fibrosis and cirrhosis, and ultimately end-stage liver disease in which the only option for some patients would be a liver transplant.
“It depends on the stage; many patients are not at the stage that they require a liver transplant,” he said. “For those with significant liver disease, not yet at the cirrhosis stage, you might be able to intervene early and prevent them from progressing to needing a liver transplant.”
Dr. Tsochatzis speculated: “If this becomes an approved treatment, it is a breakthrough for patients.”
New hope for AAT deficiency
There is still a long way to go before fazirsiran is anywhere near ready for clinical use, but the early data presented by Dr. Strnad offer a glimpse that a treatment could be on the horizon.
Naturally occurring AAT is produced in the liver and is thought to play a role in protecting against lung damage via its antiprotease activity. However, mutations in the SERPINA1 gene coding for the AAT protein leads to loss-of-function pulmonary disease and gain-of-function liver disease.
“The PI ZZ [proteinase inhibitor ZZ] genotype occurs in about one in 2,500 to 3,500 Caucasians, so actually is pretty common, and a third of them may actually have a clinically significant liver fibrosis,” said Dr. Strnad.
As levels of Z-AAT accumulate in the liver this “presumably causes the liver toxicity,” he observed. So, the thinking is that stopping the production of this mutant protein might help to reduce liver damage and allow the liver to regenerate and repair itself.
Study details
To test out this theory, a phase 2, open-label study was performed in 16 patients with confirmed AAT deficiency, all of whom had the PI ZZ genotype.
Eight patients were treated with fazirsiran, also known as ARO-AAT, for 24 weeks (cohorts 1 and 1b), while the other eight were treated for 48 weeks (cohort 2); cohort 1 (n = 4) and cohort 2 (n = 8) received 200 mg, while cohort 1b (n = 4), which was added during the trial to evaluate dose response, received 100 mg. In all cases, fazirsiran was given as a subcutaneous injection on day 1, day 4, and then every 12 weeks. All patients had biopsies at baseline, then at either 24 weeks (cohorts 1/1b) or 48 weeks (cohort 2).
“We saw a dramatic reduction in Z-AAT both in serum and in liver biopsies,” Dr. Strnad reported. Indeed, reductions in Z-AAT were around 80%-88%, he said, with a median reduction of 83% at week 24 or 48 according to the published paper.
To illustrate the clear results, Dr. Strand showed a sample biopsy slide where globules of Z-AAT present at the initial assessment were “virtually gone after 48 weeks of treatment.”
“The change in the serum and hepatic Z-AAT levels translated into improvement in liver function tests,” said Dr. Strnad.
Alanine aminotransferase levels were normalized in all patients and there was “marked improvement” in gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) with the 200-mg dose of fazirsiran. Substantial changes in liver stiffness were recorded with the higher dose, –18% at 24 weeks and –15% at 48 weeks. There were also reductions in serum Pro-C3 of –36% and –17% at 52 weeks.
“Histological changes showed an improvement in liver inflammation and hepatocyte cell death in most of the patients,” Dr. Strnad said. He also noted that there were multiple cases where there was no change and a few where there was a deterioration.
Liver fibrosis was improved in seven of 12 patients given the highest dose of fazirsiran; however, there was no change in three patients and a worsening of 1 point or more in two patients. None of the three patients with evaluable biopsies who received 100 mg showed regression of fibrosis.
Stopping or rolling back fibrosis will be the final goal of proving clinical benefit in liver disease associated with AAT, Dr. Strnad and coinvestigators observe in their published paper, and while the changes seen so far with fazirsiran may not be uniform, they appear to be in the right direction.
Safety findings
”We didn’t see any drug discontinuation, dose interruption, or premature study withdrawals,” said Dr. Strnad.
“We had four different SAE [serious adverse events] which were kind of all over the place and did not seem to be related to treatment.” Those SAEs included viral myocarditis associated with Epstein-Barr virus infection, diverticulitis, dyspnea in a subject with a history of lung disease, and vestibular neuronitis after COVID-19 vaccination.
No significant safety signals were seen regarding lung function. Time will of course tell, he said in response to a question, but “our hope, our hypothesis, is that this will not change lung function dramatically.
“I would not expect any major things over a few years. Of course, whether this can lead to something over 20 years it is difficult to say.”
The current experience with fazirsiran looks good so far, but placebo-controlled, larger and longer studies are needed.
The study was funded by Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Strnad was an investigator in the study and acknowledged receipt of research funding via his institution from the company. Dr. Strnad also acknowledged paid and unpaid relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Alpha1 Deutschland, Alpha1 Global, CSL Behring, Grifols Biologicals, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda California. Dr. Tsochatzis, chaired the late-breaker session at ILC 2022 during which the study findings were presented, was not connected to the study, and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
LONDON – The novel liver-targeting agent fazirsiran has fared well in a small, but significant, study looking at its ability to improve liver histology in adults with alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency.
Not only were serum and liver levels of the aberrant Z-AAT protein decreased, but also reductions in key liver enzymes were observed.
AAT is “a greatly understudied disease,” said study investigator Pavel Strnad, MD, who presented the results of the phase 2 AROAAT-2002 study at a meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. The results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“We have a great candidate drug, but we will only be able to bring this drug into the clinic when we understand the disease much better, and for this I would like to ask all of you for your support,” he said to delegates at the meeting.
There is currently no pharmacological treatment for AAT, observed Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, who chaired the late-breaker session during which the study findings were presented.
“It is a rare disease, but it really does affect the patients who have it. So it would be great to have a therapeutic solution for these patients,” said Dr. Tsochatzis in an interview.
Dr. Tsochatzis, who is professor of hepatology and Consultant Hepatologist at the UCL Institute for Liver and Digestive Health, Royal Free Hospital in London, noted that AAT was associated with liver impairment, fibrosis and cirrhosis, and ultimately end-stage liver disease in which the only option for some patients would be a liver transplant.
“It depends on the stage; many patients are not at the stage that they require a liver transplant,” he said. “For those with significant liver disease, not yet at the cirrhosis stage, you might be able to intervene early and prevent them from progressing to needing a liver transplant.”
Dr. Tsochatzis speculated: “If this becomes an approved treatment, it is a breakthrough for patients.”
New hope for AAT deficiency
There is still a long way to go before fazirsiran is anywhere near ready for clinical use, but the early data presented by Dr. Strnad offer a glimpse that a treatment could be on the horizon.
Naturally occurring AAT is produced in the liver and is thought to play a role in protecting against lung damage via its antiprotease activity. However, mutations in the SERPINA1 gene coding for the AAT protein leads to loss-of-function pulmonary disease and gain-of-function liver disease.
“The PI ZZ [proteinase inhibitor ZZ] genotype occurs in about one in 2,500 to 3,500 Caucasians, so actually is pretty common, and a third of them may actually have a clinically significant liver fibrosis,” said Dr. Strnad.
As levels of Z-AAT accumulate in the liver this “presumably causes the liver toxicity,” he observed. So, the thinking is that stopping the production of this mutant protein might help to reduce liver damage and allow the liver to regenerate and repair itself.
Study details
To test out this theory, a phase 2, open-label study was performed in 16 patients with confirmed AAT deficiency, all of whom had the PI ZZ genotype.
Eight patients were treated with fazirsiran, also known as ARO-AAT, for 24 weeks (cohorts 1 and 1b), while the other eight were treated for 48 weeks (cohort 2); cohort 1 (n = 4) and cohort 2 (n = 8) received 200 mg, while cohort 1b (n = 4), which was added during the trial to evaluate dose response, received 100 mg. In all cases, fazirsiran was given as a subcutaneous injection on day 1, day 4, and then every 12 weeks. All patients had biopsies at baseline, then at either 24 weeks (cohorts 1/1b) or 48 weeks (cohort 2).
“We saw a dramatic reduction in Z-AAT both in serum and in liver biopsies,” Dr. Strnad reported. Indeed, reductions in Z-AAT were around 80%-88%, he said, with a median reduction of 83% at week 24 or 48 according to the published paper.
To illustrate the clear results, Dr. Strand showed a sample biopsy slide where globules of Z-AAT present at the initial assessment were “virtually gone after 48 weeks of treatment.”
“The change in the serum and hepatic Z-AAT levels translated into improvement in liver function tests,” said Dr. Strnad.
Alanine aminotransferase levels were normalized in all patients and there was “marked improvement” in gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) with the 200-mg dose of fazirsiran. Substantial changes in liver stiffness were recorded with the higher dose, –18% at 24 weeks and –15% at 48 weeks. There were also reductions in serum Pro-C3 of –36% and –17% at 52 weeks.
“Histological changes showed an improvement in liver inflammation and hepatocyte cell death in most of the patients,” Dr. Strnad said. He also noted that there were multiple cases where there was no change and a few where there was a deterioration.
Liver fibrosis was improved in seven of 12 patients given the highest dose of fazirsiran; however, there was no change in three patients and a worsening of 1 point or more in two patients. None of the three patients with evaluable biopsies who received 100 mg showed regression of fibrosis.
Stopping or rolling back fibrosis will be the final goal of proving clinical benefit in liver disease associated with AAT, Dr. Strnad and coinvestigators observe in their published paper, and while the changes seen so far with fazirsiran may not be uniform, they appear to be in the right direction.
Safety findings
”We didn’t see any drug discontinuation, dose interruption, or premature study withdrawals,” said Dr. Strnad.
“We had four different SAE [serious adverse events] which were kind of all over the place and did not seem to be related to treatment.” Those SAEs included viral myocarditis associated with Epstein-Barr virus infection, diverticulitis, dyspnea in a subject with a history of lung disease, and vestibular neuronitis after COVID-19 vaccination.
No significant safety signals were seen regarding lung function. Time will of course tell, he said in response to a question, but “our hope, our hypothesis, is that this will not change lung function dramatically.
“I would not expect any major things over a few years. Of course, whether this can lead to something over 20 years it is difficult to say.”
The current experience with fazirsiran looks good so far, but placebo-controlled, larger and longer studies are needed.
The study was funded by Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Strnad was an investigator in the study and acknowledged receipt of research funding via his institution from the company. Dr. Strnad also acknowledged paid and unpaid relationships with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Alpha1 Deutschland, Alpha1 Global, CSL Behring, Grifols Biologicals, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda California. Dr. Tsochatzis, chaired the late-breaker session at ILC 2022 during which the study findings were presented, was not connected to the study, and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ILC 2022
New onset-depression after RA diagnosis raises mortality risk ‘more than sixfold’
The development of depression after a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis increased the risk for death “more than sixfold” when compared with having no depression at diagnosis, according to Danish researchers.
Cumulative mortality at 10 years was approximately 37% in patients with comorbid RA and depression versus around 13.5% of RA patients with no depression, Jens Kristian Pedersen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital–Svendborg Hospital and the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, also in Odense, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“According to [antidepressant] exposure status, the cumulative mortality followed two clearly different paths,” Dr. Pedersen said. “The mortality curves separated early and already within the first and second year of follow-up.”
RA, depression, and mortality
Rates of depression in patients with RA are high, Dr. Pedersen said, and while it’s previously been reported that their coexistence can increase mortality, this is the first time that the link has been investigated in a population newly diagnosed with RA.
In this study, Dr. Pedersen and collaborators wanted to look at the association in incident RA and defined depression as the first filling of an antidepressant prescription.
“Although antidepressants are used for different indications, we have recently described that in RA the most frequent indication for filling antidepressants is depression,” he explained. Moreover, that research found that “the frequency of filling coincides with the occurrence of depressive disorder previously reported in the scientific literature.”
Data sourced from multiple Danish registers
To examine the mortality risk associated with newly diagnosed RA and new-onset depression, Dr. Pedersen described how five different Danish registers were used.
First, data from the DANBIO register were used to identify patients with incident RA living in Denmark over a 10-year period ending in December 2018. Although perhaps widely known as a biologics register, DANBIO is required by the Danish National Board of Health to collect information on all patients with RA, regardless of their treatment.
Next, the Danish National Prescription Register and Danish National Patient Register were consulted to obtain data on patients who had a first prescription for antidepressant treatment and information on those who developed a diagnosis of depression. Demographic, vital status, and socioeconomic data were collated from the Danish Civil Registration System and Statistics Denmark databases.
To be sure they were looking at incident cases of RA and new cases of depression, the researchers excluded anyone with an existing prescription of antidepressants or methotrexate, or who had a confirmed diagnosis of either disorder 3 years prior to the index date of Jan. 1, 2008.
This meant that, from a total population of 18,000 patients in the DANBIO database, there were just over 11,000 who could be included in the analyses.
Overall, the median age at RA diagnosis was 61 years, two-thirds were female, and two-thirds had seropositive disease.
New-onset depression in incident RA
“During follow-up, about 10% filled a prescription of antidepressants,” said Dr. Pedersen, adding that there were 671 deaths, representing around 57,000 person-years at risk.
“The majority died from natural causes,” he said, although the cause of death was unknown in 30% of cases.
Comparing those who did and did not have a prescription for antidepressants, there were some differences in the age at which death occurred, the percentage of females to males, the presence of other comorbidities, and levels of higher education and income. These were all adjusted for in the analyses.
Adjusted hazard rate ratios were calculated to look at the mortality risk in patients who had antidepressant exposure. The highest HRR for mortality with antidepressant use was seen in patients aged 55 years or younger at 6.66, with the next highest HRRs being for male gender (3.70) and seropositive RA (3.45).
But HRRs for seronegative RA, female gender, and age 55-70 years or older than 75 years were all still around 3.0.
Depression definition questioned
“My only concern is about the definition of depression in your analysis,” said a member of the audience at the congress.
“You used antidepressant use as a proxy of depression diagnosis, but it might be that most or many patients have taken [medication] like duloxetine for pain control, and you are just seeing higher disease activity and more aggressive RA.”
Dr. Pedersen responded: “After the EULAR 2022 submission deadline, we reanalyzed our data using two other measures of depression.
“First, we use treatment with antidepressants with a positive indication of depression, according to the prescribing physician, and secondly, we used first diagnosis with depression according to ICD-10 Code F32 – ‘depressive episode after discharge from hospital as an outpatient,’ ” he said.
“All definitions end up with a hazard rate ratio of about three. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether you focus on one measure of depression or the other.”
David Isenberg, MD, FRCP, professor of rheumatology at University College London, wanted to know more about the antecedent history of depression and whether people who had been depressed maybe a decade or 2 decades before, were more likely to get RA.
That calculation has not been done, Dr. Pedersen said, adding that the study also can’t account for people who may have had recurrent depression. Depression treatment guidelines often recommend nonpharmacologic intervention in the first instance, “so we do not necessarily get the right picture of recurrent depression if we look further back.”
Pointing out that the sixfold increase in mortality was impressive, another delegate asked about whether it was because of a higher disease activity or joint damage and if the mortality risk might be lower in patients who are in remission.
“We don’t know that yet,” Dr. Pedersen answered. “We haven’t done the calculations, but there is the issue of residual confounding if we don’t take all relevant covariates into account. So, we need to do that calculation as well.”
The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association. Dr. Pedersen had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The development of depression after a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis increased the risk for death “more than sixfold” when compared with having no depression at diagnosis, according to Danish researchers.
Cumulative mortality at 10 years was approximately 37% in patients with comorbid RA and depression versus around 13.5% of RA patients with no depression, Jens Kristian Pedersen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital–Svendborg Hospital and the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, also in Odense, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“According to [antidepressant] exposure status, the cumulative mortality followed two clearly different paths,” Dr. Pedersen said. “The mortality curves separated early and already within the first and second year of follow-up.”
RA, depression, and mortality
Rates of depression in patients with RA are high, Dr. Pedersen said, and while it’s previously been reported that their coexistence can increase mortality, this is the first time that the link has been investigated in a population newly diagnosed with RA.
In this study, Dr. Pedersen and collaborators wanted to look at the association in incident RA and defined depression as the first filling of an antidepressant prescription.
“Although antidepressants are used for different indications, we have recently described that in RA the most frequent indication for filling antidepressants is depression,” he explained. Moreover, that research found that “the frequency of filling coincides with the occurrence of depressive disorder previously reported in the scientific literature.”
Data sourced from multiple Danish registers
To examine the mortality risk associated with newly diagnosed RA and new-onset depression, Dr. Pedersen described how five different Danish registers were used.
First, data from the DANBIO register were used to identify patients with incident RA living in Denmark over a 10-year period ending in December 2018. Although perhaps widely known as a biologics register, DANBIO is required by the Danish National Board of Health to collect information on all patients with RA, regardless of their treatment.
Next, the Danish National Prescription Register and Danish National Patient Register were consulted to obtain data on patients who had a first prescription for antidepressant treatment and information on those who developed a diagnosis of depression. Demographic, vital status, and socioeconomic data were collated from the Danish Civil Registration System and Statistics Denmark databases.
To be sure they were looking at incident cases of RA and new cases of depression, the researchers excluded anyone with an existing prescription of antidepressants or methotrexate, or who had a confirmed diagnosis of either disorder 3 years prior to the index date of Jan. 1, 2008.
This meant that, from a total population of 18,000 patients in the DANBIO database, there were just over 11,000 who could be included in the analyses.
Overall, the median age at RA diagnosis was 61 years, two-thirds were female, and two-thirds had seropositive disease.
New-onset depression in incident RA
“During follow-up, about 10% filled a prescription of antidepressants,” said Dr. Pedersen, adding that there were 671 deaths, representing around 57,000 person-years at risk.
“The majority died from natural causes,” he said, although the cause of death was unknown in 30% of cases.
Comparing those who did and did not have a prescription for antidepressants, there were some differences in the age at which death occurred, the percentage of females to males, the presence of other comorbidities, and levels of higher education and income. These were all adjusted for in the analyses.
Adjusted hazard rate ratios were calculated to look at the mortality risk in patients who had antidepressant exposure. The highest HRR for mortality with antidepressant use was seen in patients aged 55 years or younger at 6.66, with the next highest HRRs being for male gender (3.70) and seropositive RA (3.45).
But HRRs for seronegative RA, female gender, and age 55-70 years or older than 75 years were all still around 3.0.
Depression definition questioned
“My only concern is about the definition of depression in your analysis,” said a member of the audience at the congress.
“You used antidepressant use as a proxy of depression diagnosis, but it might be that most or many patients have taken [medication] like duloxetine for pain control, and you are just seeing higher disease activity and more aggressive RA.”
Dr. Pedersen responded: “After the EULAR 2022 submission deadline, we reanalyzed our data using two other measures of depression.
“First, we use treatment with antidepressants with a positive indication of depression, according to the prescribing physician, and secondly, we used first diagnosis with depression according to ICD-10 Code F32 – ‘depressive episode after discharge from hospital as an outpatient,’ ” he said.
“All definitions end up with a hazard rate ratio of about three. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether you focus on one measure of depression or the other.”
David Isenberg, MD, FRCP, professor of rheumatology at University College London, wanted to know more about the antecedent history of depression and whether people who had been depressed maybe a decade or 2 decades before, were more likely to get RA.
That calculation has not been done, Dr. Pedersen said, adding that the study also can’t account for people who may have had recurrent depression. Depression treatment guidelines often recommend nonpharmacologic intervention in the first instance, “so we do not necessarily get the right picture of recurrent depression if we look further back.”
Pointing out that the sixfold increase in mortality was impressive, another delegate asked about whether it was because of a higher disease activity or joint damage and if the mortality risk might be lower in patients who are in remission.
“We don’t know that yet,” Dr. Pedersen answered. “We haven’t done the calculations, but there is the issue of residual confounding if we don’t take all relevant covariates into account. So, we need to do that calculation as well.”
The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association. Dr. Pedersen had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The development of depression after a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis increased the risk for death “more than sixfold” when compared with having no depression at diagnosis, according to Danish researchers.
Cumulative mortality at 10 years was approximately 37% in patients with comorbid RA and depression versus around 13.5% of RA patients with no depression, Jens Kristian Pedersen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital–Svendborg Hospital and the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, also in Odense, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“According to [antidepressant] exposure status, the cumulative mortality followed two clearly different paths,” Dr. Pedersen said. “The mortality curves separated early and already within the first and second year of follow-up.”
RA, depression, and mortality
Rates of depression in patients with RA are high, Dr. Pedersen said, and while it’s previously been reported that their coexistence can increase mortality, this is the first time that the link has been investigated in a population newly diagnosed with RA.
In this study, Dr. Pedersen and collaborators wanted to look at the association in incident RA and defined depression as the first filling of an antidepressant prescription.
“Although antidepressants are used for different indications, we have recently described that in RA the most frequent indication for filling antidepressants is depression,” he explained. Moreover, that research found that “the frequency of filling coincides with the occurrence of depressive disorder previously reported in the scientific literature.”
Data sourced from multiple Danish registers
To examine the mortality risk associated with newly diagnosed RA and new-onset depression, Dr. Pedersen described how five different Danish registers were used.
First, data from the DANBIO register were used to identify patients with incident RA living in Denmark over a 10-year period ending in December 2018. Although perhaps widely known as a biologics register, DANBIO is required by the Danish National Board of Health to collect information on all patients with RA, regardless of their treatment.
Next, the Danish National Prescription Register and Danish National Patient Register were consulted to obtain data on patients who had a first prescription for antidepressant treatment and information on those who developed a diagnosis of depression. Demographic, vital status, and socioeconomic data were collated from the Danish Civil Registration System and Statistics Denmark databases.
To be sure they were looking at incident cases of RA and new cases of depression, the researchers excluded anyone with an existing prescription of antidepressants or methotrexate, or who had a confirmed diagnosis of either disorder 3 years prior to the index date of Jan. 1, 2008.
This meant that, from a total population of 18,000 patients in the DANBIO database, there were just over 11,000 who could be included in the analyses.
Overall, the median age at RA diagnosis was 61 years, two-thirds were female, and two-thirds had seropositive disease.
New-onset depression in incident RA
“During follow-up, about 10% filled a prescription of antidepressants,” said Dr. Pedersen, adding that there were 671 deaths, representing around 57,000 person-years at risk.
“The majority died from natural causes,” he said, although the cause of death was unknown in 30% of cases.
Comparing those who did and did not have a prescription for antidepressants, there were some differences in the age at which death occurred, the percentage of females to males, the presence of other comorbidities, and levels of higher education and income. These were all adjusted for in the analyses.
Adjusted hazard rate ratios were calculated to look at the mortality risk in patients who had antidepressant exposure. The highest HRR for mortality with antidepressant use was seen in patients aged 55 years or younger at 6.66, with the next highest HRRs being for male gender (3.70) and seropositive RA (3.45).
But HRRs for seronegative RA, female gender, and age 55-70 years or older than 75 years were all still around 3.0.
Depression definition questioned
“My only concern is about the definition of depression in your analysis,” said a member of the audience at the congress.
“You used antidepressant use as a proxy of depression diagnosis, but it might be that most or many patients have taken [medication] like duloxetine for pain control, and you are just seeing higher disease activity and more aggressive RA.”
Dr. Pedersen responded: “After the EULAR 2022 submission deadline, we reanalyzed our data using two other measures of depression.
“First, we use treatment with antidepressants with a positive indication of depression, according to the prescribing physician, and secondly, we used first diagnosis with depression according to ICD-10 Code F32 – ‘depressive episode after discharge from hospital as an outpatient,’ ” he said.
“All definitions end up with a hazard rate ratio of about three. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether you focus on one measure of depression or the other.”
David Isenberg, MD, FRCP, professor of rheumatology at University College London, wanted to know more about the antecedent history of depression and whether people who had been depressed maybe a decade or 2 decades before, were more likely to get RA.
That calculation has not been done, Dr. Pedersen said, adding that the study also can’t account for people who may have had recurrent depression. Depression treatment guidelines often recommend nonpharmacologic intervention in the first instance, “so we do not necessarily get the right picture of recurrent depression if we look further back.”
Pointing out that the sixfold increase in mortality was impressive, another delegate asked about whether it was because of a higher disease activity or joint damage and if the mortality risk might be lower in patients who are in remission.
“We don’t know that yet,” Dr. Pedersen answered. “We haven’t done the calculations, but there is the issue of residual confounding if we don’t take all relevant covariates into account. So, we need to do that calculation as well.”
The study was supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association. Dr. Pedersen had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Diagnostic axSpA MRI features differ in men and women
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).
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).
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).
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.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib perform well in early lupus trials
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib – two novel oral drugs under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – have performed well in early clinical trials reported as late-breaking abstracts at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 2 PAISLEY study, up to 58% of patients treated with deucravacitinib versus 34% of placebo-treated patients met the primary study endpoint of an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) after 38 weeks of treatment. Deucravacitinib also “achieved or meaningfully improved” all of the secondary endpoints set out in the 363-patient trial and was reported to have a safety and tolerability profile that was generally similar to placebo.
“Deucravacitinib shows promise as a novel therapy for SLE and warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, a clinical rheumatologist and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne.
In a separate, ongoing phase 1b/2a study designed to evaluate orelabrutinib as a potential treatment for SLE, no safety concerns were seen with the investigational drug, along with “trending efficacy,” that supports “further studies in larger and longer-term trials,” according to the study’s investigators.
“What sets these two new drugs apart from currently available targeted therapies are their mode of action,” said Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, who was not involved in either study.
“The results from the PAISLEY study are promising, and it’s good to see the patients recruited were of diverse ethnicity [50%–60% were White],” added Dr. Md Yusof, a senior research fellow within the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
He noted that the placebo rate was also low: “This could be contributed to by keeping the background prednisolone dose low, which is often a challenge in designing SLE trials.”
Deucravacitinib – the distant cousin of the JAK family?
“Deucravacitinib is a compound you might not have heard of before,” Dr. Morand said.
“It’s an inhibitor of a kinase called TYK2, which, broadly speaking, is a member of JAK [Janus kinase] family,” he explained in an interview. TYK2 regulates signal transduction downstream of receptors for interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 pathways and the type I interferon family.
“It’s a very finite set of cytokine signals” that are being blocked with deucravacitinib, he said, adding that this means it’s more directly targeting SLE pathogenic mechanisms than perhaps other JAK inhibitor compounds.
“It also means that it shouldn’t have some of the downsides of the other JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Morand said, “such as hematopoietic side effects, including cytopenias.”
The phase 2 PAISLEY study
This study involved 363 patients with moderate to severe, active SLE were recruited and randomized to receive placebo (n = 90) or one of three doses of deucravacitinib: 3 mg twice daily (n = 91), 6 mg twice daily (n = 93), or 12 mg once daily (n = 89). Most patients were also taking multiple background therapies, but this was similar across the four treatment arms.
The SRI-4 primary endpoint after 38 weeks of treatment was met by 34.4% of patients who received placebo, but 58.2% of those treated with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (P = .0006 versus placebo), 49.5% (P = .021) of those treated with 6 mg twice daily, and 44.9% (P = .078) treated with 12 mg once daily.
“All secondary outcome measures were achieved or meaningfully improved at week 48, including SRI-4, BICLA [British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment], low-level disease activity state [LLDAS], reduction in skin disease and reduction in arthritis,” Dr. Morand said.
In addition, early biomarker results showed reductions in double-stranded DNA titers and increases in serum C4 complement with deucravacitinib across the duration of the study.
In discussion, Dr. Morand was asked about the seemingly negative or inverse dose response seen in the trial, with the best results seen with the 3-mg twice daily dose, then lower effects seen with two higher doses.
“Our analysis is that it’s not an inverse dose response, but rather a flat dose response above the 3-mg [twice daily] dose,” he said, noting that there was a higher dropout rate because of adverse effects in the 12-mg once daily group and those participants were recorded as nonresponders.
“We think what we’ve seen here is that 3 mg twice daily is a sufficient dose and there was no additional therapeutic gain above that.”
Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of interest were overall fairly similar between deucravacitinib and placebo groups. The most common side effects seen with deucravacitinib were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and urinary tract infection. Skin reactions, such as acne, rash, and pruritis, among others, were more common in deucravacitinib- than in placebo-treated patients.
Importantly, Dr. Morand noted that there were no major cardiac events or thrombotic events and no deaths seen in the study. There was no signal for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster. There was no effect on common laboratory parameters.
“These are very encouraging results for patients with SLE,” Albert Roy, executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, said in a press release issued by the Lupus Research Alliance.
“We are honored to have played a role in this exciting work by helping to conduct this clinical trial through our Lupus Clinical Investigators Network of renowned North American academic centers.”
In an interview, he added: “We’re cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, if it continues to progress through phase 3, it’ll be the first oral agent that would be approved for lupus, notwithstanding prednisone and Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine], back in the 50s.”
Orelabrutinib phase 2 study in SLE
Another approach to oral route of administration under investigation in SLE is the use of orelabrutinib, an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias.
The rationale for testing it in SLE comes from two preclinical studies that had suggested a possible benefit in reducing disease activity, explained Zhanguo Li, MD, PhD, professor at Peking University People’s Hospital in Beijing. He presented the results of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib/IIa dose-finding study comparing three different doses of orelabrutinib (50, 80, and 100 mg, once daily) to placebo.
As in the deucravacitinib trial, the SRI-4 was used to assess the potential efficacy of orelabrutinib, although in a much smaller patient population (n = 92) and at a shorter time point (12 weeks). Results showed an 11%-20% difference between the percentage of patients who met SRI-4 response criteria with orelabrutinib and those on placebo, at a respective 46.5%, 53.3%, 56.3% and 35.7%.
SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores showed a similar benefit of orelabrutinib over placebo, with 54%-63% and 30% of patients, respectively, achieving a score of 8 or more.
Adverse event rates were similar to those of placebo with most events being of mild or moderate nature. Three patients treated with orelabrutinib experienced serious adverse events, of which one was grade 3, but there were no reported deaths.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data showed a dose effect, and nearly complete occupancy of BTK was achieved at all dose levels for 24 hours, consistent with once-daily dosing.
“BTK plays an important role in B-cell regulation, thus B-cell and myeloid-cell blockade through BTK inhibition is an interesting potential new target for SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
“Data from this early dose-ranging trial is encouraging. No major safety signal apart from mild reduction in lymphocyte and white cell counts,” he added.
“There are still plenty of challenges ahead for this drug’s development, particularly as none of the BTK inhibitors have yet to succeed in phase 3 trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
Early days for both agents
While both seem currently promising, it’s very early days for deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib as possible new agents for SLE.
Aside from SLE, deucravacitinib is being tested across multiple immune-mediated diseases. This includes psoriasis, where two phase 3 trials – POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 – have already been completed, and psoriatic arthritis, where a phase 2 trial has been reported; all with positive results.
Phase 3 testing of deucravacitinib will go ahead and recruitment may start toward the end of this year, but it’ll take years to complete the studies, Dr. Morand said. Even if the trials prove positive, neither agent is going to be available for clinical use for several years.
A case in point is anifrolumab (Saphnelo), which Dr. Morand was involved in assessing. Despite gaining approval in the United States and across much of the world, the drug still going through reimbursement processes.
“The trial data, and lots of post hoc analysis, show clearly that it’s a major step forward in treating lupus,” he said in an interview, but “access is limited in most places, so hands-on experience with that new treatment is still limited for most clinicians.”
As for all the other new targeted approaches under investigation, “although there’s a lot of trial activity, there’s still a couple of years away before any of the current trials deliver new treatment. That’s if they provide positive findings. Indeed, there have been numerous agents that have shown promise at phase 2 but then fall at the final phase 3 hurdle, including baricitinib, which Dr. Morand reported on in a separate poster presentation.
Phase 3 data proved disappointing: “Results are not sufficiently positive for that to go forward,” he said, adding that “transitioning from a successful phase 2 to a successful phase 3 is challenging, and many products have failed.”
Dr. Morand added: “It’s a very exciting time to be in lupus research, and there’s a lot of optimism about the future. But when I go back to my clinic tomorrow, I treat my patients exactly the same as I did last week and last year.”
It’s yet to be seen if deucravacitinib will fulfill its early promise, but it’s off to an impressive start. A positive for patients is that it’s an oral drug, with the potential to improve access to treatment across the world where getting infusions may be an issue.
“These are some of the most exciting data that I’ve seen at the phase 2 level in terms of effect size across all the readouts that are used,” Dr. Morand said. “There’s no guesswork here; it worked across all the measures. That’s very reassuring.”
The PAISLEY study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Morand has acted as a consultant to the company and received research support for the conduct of the trial. He disclosed acting as a consultant or receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, Servier, Novartis, and UCB. Mr. Roy is the executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, which manages the Lupus Clinical Investigators Network based in North America. Lupus Therapeutics is the clinical trials arm of the Lupus Research Alliance, a nongovernmental, nonprofit funder of lupus research worldwide. The orelabrutinib study was sponsored by InnoCare Pharma. Dr. Li is the principal investigator for the trial but had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Md Yusof disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib – two novel oral drugs under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – have performed well in early clinical trials reported as late-breaking abstracts at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 2 PAISLEY study, up to 58% of patients treated with deucravacitinib versus 34% of placebo-treated patients met the primary study endpoint of an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) after 38 weeks of treatment. Deucravacitinib also “achieved or meaningfully improved” all of the secondary endpoints set out in the 363-patient trial and was reported to have a safety and tolerability profile that was generally similar to placebo.
“Deucravacitinib shows promise as a novel therapy for SLE and warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, a clinical rheumatologist and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne.
In a separate, ongoing phase 1b/2a study designed to evaluate orelabrutinib as a potential treatment for SLE, no safety concerns were seen with the investigational drug, along with “trending efficacy,” that supports “further studies in larger and longer-term trials,” according to the study’s investigators.
“What sets these two new drugs apart from currently available targeted therapies are their mode of action,” said Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, who was not involved in either study.
“The results from the PAISLEY study are promising, and it’s good to see the patients recruited were of diverse ethnicity [50%–60% were White],” added Dr. Md Yusof, a senior research fellow within the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
He noted that the placebo rate was also low: “This could be contributed to by keeping the background prednisolone dose low, which is often a challenge in designing SLE trials.”
Deucravacitinib – the distant cousin of the JAK family?
“Deucravacitinib is a compound you might not have heard of before,” Dr. Morand said.
“It’s an inhibitor of a kinase called TYK2, which, broadly speaking, is a member of JAK [Janus kinase] family,” he explained in an interview. TYK2 regulates signal transduction downstream of receptors for interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 pathways and the type I interferon family.
“It’s a very finite set of cytokine signals” that are being blocked with deucravacitinib, he said, adding that this means it’s more directly targeting SLE pathogenic mechanisms than perhaps other JAK inhibitor compounds.
“It also means that it shouldn’t have some of the downsides of the other JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Morand said, “such as hematopoietic side effects, including cytopenias.”
The phase 2 PAISLEY study
This study involved 363 patients with moderate to severe, active SLE were recruited and randomized to receive placebo (n = 90) or one of three doses of deucravacitinib: 3 mg twice daily (n = 91), 6 mg twice daily (n = 93), or 12 mg once daily (n = 89). Most patients were also taking multiple background therapies, but this was similar across the four treatment arms.
The SRI-4 primary endpoint after 38 weeks of treatment was met by 34.4% of patients who received placebo, but 58.2% of those treated with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (P = .0006 versus placebo), 49.5% (P = .021) of those treated with 6 mg twice daily, and 44.9% (P = .078) treated with 12 mg once daily.
“All secondary outcome measures were achieved or meaningfully improved at week 48, including SRI-4, BICLA [British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment], low-level disease activity state [LLDAS], reduction in skin disease and reduction in arthritis,” Dr. Morand said.
In addition, early biomarker results showed reductions in double-stranded DNA titers and increases in serum C4 complement with deucravacitinib across the duration of the study.
In discussion, Dr. Morand was asked about the seemingly negative or inverse dose response seen in the trial, with the best results seen with the 3-mg twice daily dose, then lower effects seen with two higher doses.
“Our analysis is that it’s not an inverse dose response, but rather a flat dose response above the 3-mg [twice daily] dose,” he said, noting that there was a higher dropout rate because of adverse effects in the 12-mg once daily group and those participants were recorded as nonresponders.
“We think what we’ve seen here is that 3 mg twice daily is a sufficient dose and there was no additional therapeutic gain above that.”
Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of interest were overall fairly similar between deucravacitinib and placebo groups. The most common side effects seen with deucravacitinib were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and urinary tract infection. Skin reactions, such as acne, rash, and pruritis, among others, were more common in deucravacitinib- than in placebo-treated patients.
Importantly, Dr. Morand noted that there were no major cardiac events or thrombotic events and no deaths seen in the study. There was no signal for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster. There was no effect on common laboratory parameters.
“These are very encouraging results for patients with SLE,” Albert Roy, executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, said in a press release issued by the Lupus Research Alliance.
“We are honored to have played a role in this exciting work by helping to conduct this clinical trial through our Lupus Clinical Investigators Network of renowned North American academic centers.”
In an interview, he added: “We’re cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, if it continues to progress through phase 3, it’ll be the first oral agent that would be approved for lupus, notwithstanding prednisone and Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine], back in the 50s.”
Orelabrutinib phase 2 study in SLE
Another approach to oral route of administration under investigation in SLE is the use of orelabrutinib, an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias.
The rationale for testing it in SLE comes from two preclinical studies that had suggested a possible benefit in reducing disease activity, explained Zhanguo Li, MD, PhD, professor at Peking University People’s Hospital in Beijing. He presented the results of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib/IIa dose-finding study comparing three different doses of orelabrutinib (50, 80, and 100 mg, once daily) to placebo.
As in the deucravacitinib trial, the SRI-4 was used to assess the potential efficacy of orelabrutinib, although in a much smaller patient population (n = 92) and at a shorter time point (12 weeks). Results showed an 11%-20% difference between the percentage of patients who met SRI-4 response criteria with orelabrutinib and those on placebo, at a respective 46.5%, 53.3%, 56.3% and 35.7%.
SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores showed a similar benefit of orelabrutinib over placebo, with 54%-63% and 30% of patients, respectively, achieving a score of 8 or more.
Adverse event rates were similar to those of placebo with most events being of mild or moderate nature. Three patients treated with orelabrutinib experienced serious adverse events, of which one was grade 3, but there were no reported deaths.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data showed a dose effect, and nearly complete occupancy of BTK was achieved at all dose levels for 24 hours, consistent with once-daily dosing.
“BTK plays an important role in B-cell regulation, thus B-cell and myeloid-cell blockade through BTK inhibition is an interesting potential new target for SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
“Data from this early dose-ranging trial is encouraging. No major safety signal apart from mild reduction in lymphocyte and white cell counts,” he added.
“There are still plenty of challenges ahead for this drug’s development, particularly as none of the BTK inhibitors have yet to succeed in phase 3 trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
Early days for both agents
While both seem currently promising, it’s very early days for deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib as possible new agents for SLE.
Aside from SLE, deucravacitinib is being tested across multiple immune-mediated diseases. This includes psoriasis, where two phase 3 trials – POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 – have already been completed, and psoriatic arthritis, where a phase 2 trial has been reported; all with positive results.
Phase 3 testing of deucravacitinib will go ahead and recruitment may start toward the end of this year, but it’ll take years to complete the studies, Dr. Morand said. Even if the trials prove positive, neither agent is going to be available for clinical use for several years.
A case in point is anifrolumab (Saphnelo), which Dr. Morand was involved in assessing. Despite gaining approval in the United States and across much of the world, the drug still going through reimbursement processes.
“The trial data, and lots of post hoc analysis, show clearly that it’s a major step forward in treating lupus,” he said in an interview, but “access is limited in most places, so hands-on experience with that new treatment is still limited for most clinicians.”
As for all the other new targeted approaches under investigation, “although there’s a lot of trial activity, there’s still a couple of years away before any of the current trials deliver new treatment. That’s if they provide positive findings. Indeed, there have been numerous agents that have shown promise at phase 2 but then fall at the final phase 3 hurdle, including baricitinib, which Dr. Morand reported on in a separate poster presentation.
Phase 3 data proved disappointing: “Results are not sufficiently positive for that to go forward,” he said, adding that “transitioning from a successful phase 2 to a successful phase 3 is challenging, and many products have failed.”
Dr. Morand added: “It’s a very exciting time to be in lupus research, and there’s a lot of optimism about the future. But when I go back to my clinic tomorrow, I treat my patients exactly the same as I did last week and last year.”
It’s yet to be seen if deucravacitinib will fulfill its early promise, but it’s off to an impressive start. A positive for patients is that it’s an oral drug, with the potential to improve access to treatment across the world where getting infusions may be an issue.
“These are some of the most exciting data that I’ve seen at the phase 2 level in terms of effect size across all the readouts that are used,” Dr. Morand said. “There’s no guesswork here; it worked across all the measures. That’s very reassuring.”
The PAISLEY study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Morand has acted as a consultant to the company and received research support for the conduct of the trial. He disclosed acting as a consultant or receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, Servier, Novartis, and UCB. Mr. Roy is the executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, which manages the Lupus Clinical Investigators Network based in North America. Lupus Therapeutics is the clinical trials arm of the Lupus Research Alliance, a nongovernmental, nonprofit funder of lupus research worldwide. The orelabrutinib study was sponsored by InnoCare Pharma. Dr. Li is the principal investigator for the trial but had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Md Yusof disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.
Deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib – two novel oral drugs under investigation for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) – have performed well in early clinical trials reported as late-breaking abstracts at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 2 PAISLEY study, up to 58% of patients treated with deucravacitinib versus 34% of placebo-treated patients met the primary study endpoint of an SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) after 38 weeks of treatment. Deucravacitinib also “achieved or meaningfully improved” all of the secondary endpoints set out in the 363-patient trial and was reported to have a safety and tolerability profile that was generally similar to placebo.
“Deucravacitinib shows promise as a novel therapy for SLE and warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, PhD, a clinical rheumatologist and head of the School of Clinical Sciences at Monash University in Melbourne.
In a separate, ongoing phase 1b/2a study designed to evaluate orelabrutinib as a potential treatment for SLE, no safety concerns were seen with the investigational drug, along with “trending efficacy,” that supports “further studies in larger and longer-term trials,” according to the study’s investigators.
“What sets these two new drugs apart from currently available targeted therapies are their mode of action,” said Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, who was not involved in either study.
“The results from the PAISLEY study are promising, and it’s good to see the patients recruited were of diverse ethnicity [50%–60% were White],” added Dr. Md Yusof, a senior research fellow within the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine and a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.
He noted that the placebo rate was also low: “This could be contributed to by keeping the background prednisolone dose low, which is often a challenge in designing SLE trials.”
Deucravacitinib – the distant cousin of the JAK family?
“Deucravacitinib is a compound you might not have heard of before,” Dr. Morand said.
“It’s an inhibitor of a kinase called TYK2, which, broadly speaking, is a member of JAK [Janus kinase] family,” he explained in an interview. TYK2 regulates signal transduction downstream of receptors for interleukin (IL)-23 and IL-12 pathways and the type I interferon family.
“It’s a very finite set of cytokine signals” that are being blocked with deucravacitinib, he said, adding that this means it’s more directly targeting SLE pathogenic mechanisms than perhaps other JAK inhibitor compounds.
“It also means that it shouldn’t have some of the downsides of the other JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Morand said, “such as hematopoietic side effects, including cytopenias.”
The phase 2 PAISLEY study
This study involved 363 patients with moderate to severe, active SLE were recruited and randomized to receive placebo (n = 90) or one of three doses of deucravacitinib: 3 mg twice daily (n = 91), 6 mg twice daily (n = 93), or 12 mg once daily (n = 89). Most patients were also taking multiple background therapies, but this was similar across the four treatment arms.
The SRI-4 primary endpoint after 38 weeks of treatment was met by 34.4% of patients who received placebo, but 58.2% of those treated with deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (P = .0006 versus placebo), 49.5% (P = .021) of those treated with 6 mg twice daily, and 44.9% (P = .078) treated with 12 mg once daily.
“All secondary outcome measures were achieved or meaningfully improved at week 48, including SRI-4, BICLA [British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment], low-level disease activity state [LLDAS], reduction in skin disease and reduction in arthritis,” Dr. Morand said.
In addition, early biomarker results showed reductions in double-stranded DNA titers and increases in serum C4 complement with deucravacitinib across the duration of the study.
In discussion, Dr. Morand was asked about the seemingly negative or inverse dose response seen in the trial, with the best results seen with the 3-mg twice daily dose, then lower effects seen with two higher doses.
“Our analysis is that it’s not an inverse dose response, but rather a flat dose response above the 3-mg [twice daily] dose,” he said, noting that there was a higher dropout rate because of adverse effects in the 12-mg once daily group and those participants were recorded as nonresponders.
“We think what we’ve seen here is that 3 mg twice daily is a sufficient dose and there was no additional therapeutic gain above that.”
Rates of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and AEs of interest were overall fairly similar between deucravacitinib and placebo groups. The most common side effects seen with deucravacitinib were upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, headache, and urinary tract infection. Skin reactions, such as acne, rash, and pruritis, among others, were more common in deucravacitinib- than in placebo-treated patients.
Importantly, Dr. Morand noted that there were no major cardiac events or thrombotic events and no deaths seen in the study. There was no signal for an increase in serious or opportunistic infections, including herpes zoster. There was no effect on common laboratory parameters.
“These are very encouraging results for patients with SLE,” Albert Roy, executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, said in a press release issued by the Lupus Research Alliance.
“We are honored to have played a role in this exciting work by helping to conduct this clinical trial through our Lupus Clinical Investigators Network of renowned North American academic centers.”
In an interview, he added: “We’re cautiously optimistic. Hopefully, if it continues to progress through phase 3, it’ll be the first oral agent that would be approved for lupus, notwithstanding prednisone and Plaquenil [hydroxychloroquine], back in the 50s.”
Orelabrutinib phase 2 study in SLE
Another approach to oral route of administration under investigation in SLE is the use of orelabrutinib, an irreversible inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that was approved in China in December 2020 for the treatment of certain lymphomas and leukemias.
The rationale for testing it in SLE comes from two preclinical studies that had suggested a possible benefit in reducing disease activity, explained Zhanguo Li, MD, PhD, professor at Peking University People’s Hospital in Beijing. He presented the results of an ongoing randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib/IIa dose-finding study comparing three different doses of orelabrutinib (50, 80, and 100 mg, once daily) to placebo.
As in the deucravacitinib trial, the SRI-4 was used to assess the potential efficacy of orelabrutinib, although in a much smaller patient population (n = 92) and at a shorter time point (12 weeks). Results showed an 11%-20% difference between the percentage of patients who met SRI-4 response criteria with orelabrutinib and those on placebo, at a respective 46.5%, 53.3%, 56.3% and 35.7%.
SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores showed a similar benefit of orelabrutinib over placebo, with 54%-63% and 30% of patients, respectively, achieving a score of 8 or more.
Adverse event rates were similar to those of placebo with most events being of mild or moderate nature. Three patients treated with orelabrutinib experienced serious adverse events, of which one was grade 3, but there were no reported deaths.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data showed a dose effect, and nearly complete occupancy of BTK was achieved at all dose levels for 24 hours, consistent with once-daily dosing.
“BTK plays an important role in B-cell regulation, thus B-cell and myeloid-cell blockade through BTK inhibition is an interesting potential new target for SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
“Data from this early dose-ranging trial is encouraging. No major safety signal apart from mild reduction in lymphocyte and white cell counts,” he added.
“There are still plenty of challenges ahead for this drug’s development, particularly as none of the BTK inhibitors have yet to succeed in phase 3 trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases,” Dr. Md Yusof said.
Early days for both agents
While both seem currently promising, it’s very early days for deucravacitinib and orelabrutinib as possible new agents for SLE.
Aside from SLE, deucravacitinib is being tested across multiple immune-mediated diseases. This includes psoriasis, where two phase 3 trials – POETYK PSO-1 and POETYK PSO-2 – have already been completed, and psoriatic arthritis, where a phase 2 trial has been reported; all with positive results.
Phase 3 testing of deucravacitinib will go ahead and recruitment may start toward the end of this year, but it’ll take years to complete the studies, Dr. Morand said. Even if the trials prove positive, neither agent is going to be available for clinical use for several years.
A case in point is anifrolumab (Saphnelo), which Dr. Morand was involved in assessing. Despite gaining approval in the United States and across much of the world, the drug still going through reimbursement processes.
“The trial data, and lots of post hoc analysis, show clearly that it’s a major step forward in treating lupus,” he said in an interview, but “access is limited in most places, so hands-on experience with that new treatment is still limited for most clinicians.”
As for all the other new targeted approaches under investigation, “although there’s a lot of trial activity, there’s still a couple of years away before any of the current trials deliver new treatment. That’s if they provide positive findings. Indeed, there have been numerous agents that have shown promise at phase 2 but then fall at the final phase 3 hurdle, including baricitinib, which Dr. Morand reported on in a separate poster presentation.
Phase 3 data proved disappointing: “Results are not sufficiently positive for that to go forward,” he said, adding that “transitioning from a successful phase 2 to a successful phase 3 is challenging, and many products have failed.”
Dr. Morand added: “It’s a very exciting time to be in lupus research, and there’s a lot of optimism about the future. But when I go back to my clinic tomorrow, I treat my patients exactly the same as I did last week and last year.”
It’s yet to be seen if deucravacitinib will fulfill its early promise, but it’s off to an impressive start. A positive for patients is that it’s an oral drug, with the potential to improve access to treatment across the world where getting infusions may be an issue.
“These are some of the most exciting data that I’ve seen at the phase 2 level in terms of effect size across all the readouts that are used,” Dr. Morand said. “There’s no guesswork here; it worked across all the measures. That’s very reassuring.”
The PAISLEY study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Morand has acted as a consultant to the company and received research support for the conduct of the trial. He disclosed acting as a consultant or receiving research funding from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, Servier, Novartis, and UCB. Mr. Roy is the executive director of Lupus Therapeutics, which manages the Lupus Clinical Investigators Network based in North America. Lupus Therapeutics is the clinical trials arm of the Lupus Research Alliance, a nongovernmental, nonprofit funder of lupus research worldwide. The orelabrutinib study was sponsored by InnoCare Pharma. Dr. Li is the principal investigator for the trial but had no conflicts of interest to declare. Dr. Md Yusof disclosed receiving consultancy fees from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Methotrexate enhances pegloticase response in uncontrolled gout
In patients with uncontrolled gout, response rates were increased by 32% when methotrexate was used in conjunction with pegloticase versus pegloticase plus a placebo, it was reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 4 MIRROR trial, 71% of patients who received pretreatment with methotrexate and then the combination of methotrexate and pegloticase achieved uric-acid levels lower than 6 mg/dL for more than 80% of the time during weeks 20-24 of the 52-week study. By comparison, only 39% of those treated with pegloticase plus a placebo achieved this primary endpoint (P < .0001).
“This trial confirms not only improved efficacy but improved safety in patients treated with pegloticase in combination with methotrexate 15 mg orally once weekly,” study investigator John K. Botson, MD, RPh, CCD, said in reporting the trial’s findings.
This is good news for patients, suggested two rheumatologists who were not involved in the study. The combination appears “useful for a select group of gout patients,” observed Christian Ammitzbøll, MD, PhD, from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
“Very promising in refractory gout,” agreed Emre Bilgin, MD, from Ankara, Turkey.
Rationale for using methotrexate
“Oral urate lowering agents are the mainstay of treatment of gout, but there are patients that just don’t respond to oral agents,” said Dr. Botson, a rheumatologist in private practice from Anchorage, Alaska.
“These patients are very difficult to treat,” he added. “They have a lot of physical disabilities, they have high medical comorbidities, and they have a low quality of life. Their treatment options are extremely limited.”
One of the few options they have is pegloticase, a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme sold under the brand name Krystexxa for the past 12 years. It lowers serum uric acid by converting it to allantoin, which is more water soluble and thus is easier to excrete from the body.
However, one of the problems of using the drug is that anti-drug antibodies frequently develop, meaning that discontinuation rates can be as high as 50%, with around a quarter of patients at high risk of experiencing an infusion reaction.
“Methotrexate is a medication we’re very familiar with for other rheumatologic conditions that use biologic medications, and we use this to prevent anti-drug antibodies. So, the MIRROR RCT was a study we performed to examine the pegloticase therapy in combination with methotrexate co therapy,” explained Dr. Botson.
In fact, co-administration of methotrexate and pegloticase was associated with fewer infusion reactions than using pegloticase alone (3% vs. 31%).
Study design and results
A total of 152 patients were included in the trial and were treated with methotrexate at a weekly dose of 15 mg for 2 weeks before being randomized, 2:1, to either continue methotrexate and then receive intravenous pegloticase or receive the latter with a placebo. Pegloticase was given at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment was for 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint of serum uric acid response tested at 6 months.
The reason for the 2-week run-in period with methotrexate was to check that patients would be able to tolerate it, Dr. Botson explained.
The mean age of patients was around 54 years, the majority (> 84%) were male and were White (69%). The average duration of gout was about 14 years, with over 74% having tophi present at screening and experiencing 10-11 flares in the previous year. Baseline serum uric acid averaged at about 9 mg/dL.
Almost three-quarters of the 100 patients (73%) who were treated with the combination completed treatment to week 24 while the corresponding percentage in the placebo arm (n = 52) was 39%. The main reason for stopping was due to lack of efficacy (27% and 61% of cases, respectively), defined as having serum uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements.
The median time to discontinuation was 69 days for those in the placebo arm; “it was non-estimable” in the methotrexate arm, Dr. Botson reported.
The mean change in serum uric acid through to week 24 was higher in the methotrexate than placebo arm, at a respective 7.66 and 5.23 mg/dL, giving a significant mean difference of 2.43 mg/dL.
There was a “dramatic resolution of tophaceous deposits,” Dr. Botson said. Complete resolution of tophi was seen in 34.6% of methotrexate-treated patients versus 13.8% of pegloticase-placebo–treated patients (P = .043).
One of the most common adverse events associated with pegloticase treatment is gout flare, which occurred in about 70% of participants in both study arms. Overall, the addition of methotrexate did not increase the risk for adverse events in general, and of the two deaths seen in the study – both in methotrexate-treated patients – one was because of a heart attack and another due COVID-19, so they were unrelated to study treatment.
In patients with renal insufficiency
Concern was raised during the discussion, however, on how to handle methotrexate use in patients with renal insufficiency.
“That’s been a debate that we’ve had in this study and others,” said Dr. Botson, acknowledging that “methotrexate is often a concern for the nephrologist that we’re co-treating these patients with.” However, no dose adjustments were needed in the study.
“There are some other studies with other immunomodulators that do suggest that other agents could be used that may be a little less potentially renal toxic, but we didn’t see any toxicity in the patients that we had, even in those that had a reduced [glomerular filtration rate],” he added.
Dr. Botson has received research support from Horizon and Radius Health. He also acknowledged receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx*, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
Correction, 6/7/22: The name of the company ChemoCentryx was misstated.
In patients with uncontrolled gout, response rates were increased by 32% when methotrexate was used in conjunction with pegloticase versus pegloticase plus a placebo, it was reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 4 MIRROR trial, 71% of patients who received pretreatment with methotrexate and then the combination of methotrexate and pegloticase achieved uric-acid levels lower than 6 mg/dL for more than 80% of the time during weeks 20-24 of the 52-week study. By comparison, only 39% of those treated with pegloticase plus a placebo achieved this primary endpoint (P < .0001).
“This trial confirms not only improved efficacy but improved safety in patients treated with pegloticase in combination with methotrexate 15 mg orally once weekly,” study investigator John K. Botson, MD, RPh, CCD, said in reporting the trial’s findings.
This is good news for patients, suggested two rheumatologists who were not involved in the study. The combination appears “useful for a select group of gout patients,” observed Christian Ammitzbøll, MD, PhD, from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
“Very promising in refractory gout,” agreed Emre Bilgin, MD, from Ankara, Turkey.
Rationale for using methotrexate
“Oral urate lowering agents are the mainstay of treatment of gout, but there are patients that just don’t respond to oral agents,” said Dr. Botson, a rheumatologist in private practice from Anchorage, Alaska.
“These patients are very difficult to treat,” he added. “They have a lot of physical disabilities, they have high medical comorbidities, and they have a low quality of life. Their treatment options are extremely limited.”
One of the few options they have is pegloticase, a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme sold under the brand name Krystexxa for the past 12 years. It lowers serum uric acid by converting it to allantoin, which is more water soluble and thus is easier to excrete from the body.
However, one of the problems of using the drug is that anti-drug antibodies frequently develop, meaning that discontinuation rates can be as high as 50%, with around a quarter of patients at high risk of experiencing an infusion reaction.
“Methotrexate is a medication we’re very familiar with for other rheumatologic conditions that use biologic medications, and we use this to prevent anti-drug antibodies. So, the MIRROR RCT was a study we performed to examine the pegloticase therapy in combination with methotrexate co therapy,” explained Dr. Botson.
In fact, co-administration of methotrexate and pegloticase was associated with fewer infusion reactions than using pegloticase alone (3% vs. 31%).
Study design and results
A total of 152 patients were included in the trial and were treated with methotrexate at a weekly dose of 15 mg for 2 weeks before being randomized, 2:1, to either continue methotrexate and then receive intravenous pegloticase or receive the latter with a placebo. Pegloticase was given at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment was for 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint of serum uric acid response tested at 6 months.
The reason for the 2-week run-in period with methotrexate was to check that patients would be able to tolerate it, Dr. Botson explained.
The mean age of patients was around 54 years, the majority (> 84%) were male and were White (69%). The average duration of gout was about 14 years, with over 74% having tophi present at screening and experiencing 10-11 flares in the previous year. Baseline serum uric acid averaged at about 9 mg/dL.
Almost three-quarters of the 100 patients (73%) who were treated with the combination completed treatment to week 24 while the corresponding percentage in the placebo arm (n = 52) was 39%. The main reason for stopping was due to lack of efficacy (27% and 61% of cases, respectively), defined as having serum uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements.
The median time to discontinuation was 69 days for those in the placebo arm; “it was non-estimable” in the methotrexate arm, Dr. Botson reported.
The mean change in serum uric acid through to week 24 was higher in the methotrexate than placebo arm, at a respective 7.66 and 5.23 mg/dL, giving a significant mean difference of 2.43 mg/dL.
There was a “dramatic resolution of tophaceous deposits,” Dr. Botson said. Complete resolution of tophi was seen in 34.6% of methotrexate-treated patients versus 13.8% of pegloticase-placebo–treated patients (P = .043).
One of the most common adverse events associated with pegloticase treatment is gout flare, which occurred in about 70% of participants in both study arms. Overall, the addition of methotrexate did not increase the risk for adverse events in general, and of the two deaths seen in the study – both in methotrexate-treated patients – one was because of a heart attack and another due COVID-19, so they were unrelated to study treatment.
In patients with renal insufficiency
Concern was raised during the discussion, however, on how to handle methotrexate use in patients with renal insufficiency.
“That’s been a debate that we’ve had in this study and others,” said Dr. Botson, acknowledging that “methotrexate is often a concern for the nephrologist that we’re co-treating these patients with.” However, no dose adjustments were needed in the study.
“There are some other studies with other immunomodulators that do suggest that other agents could be used that may be a little less potentially renal toxic, but we didn’t see any toxicity in the patients that we had, even in those that had a reduced [glomerular filtration rate],” he added.
Dr. Botson has received research support from Horizon and Radius Health. He also acknowledged receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx*, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
Correction, 6/7/22: The name of the company ChemoCentryx was misstated.
In patients with uncontrolled gout, response rates were increased by 32% when methotrexate was used in conjunction with pegloticase versus pegloticase plus a placebo, it was reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
In the phase 4 MIRROR trial, 71% of patients who received pretreatment with methotrexate and then the combination of methotrexate and pegloticase achieved uric-acid levels lower than 6 mg/dL for more than 80% of the time during weeks 20-24 of the 52-week study. By comparison, only 39% of those treated with pegloticase plus a placebo achieved this primary endpoint (P < .0001).
“This trial confirms not only improved efficacy but improved safety in patients treated with pegloticase in combination with methotrexate 15 mg orally once weekly,” study investigator John K. Botson, MD, RPh, CCD, said in reporting the trial’s findings.
This is good news for patients, suggested two rheumatologists who were not involved in the study. The combination appears “useful for a select group of gout patients,” observed Christian Ammitzbøll, MD, PhD, from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
“Very promising in refractory gout,” agreed Emre Bilgin, MD, from Ankara, Turkey.
Rationale for using methotrexate
“Oral urate lowering agents are the mainstay of treatment of gout, but there are patients that just don’t respond to oral agents,” said Dr. Botson, a rheumatologist in private practice from Anchorage, Alaska.
“These patients are very difficult to treat,” he added. “They have a lot of physical disabilities, they have high medical comorbidities, and they have a low quality of life. Their treatment options are extremely limited.”
One of the few options they have is pegloticase, a pegylated uric acid specific enzyme sold under the brand name Krystexxa for the past 12 years. It lowers serum uric acid by converting it to allantoin, which is more water soluble and thus is easier to excrete from the body.
However, one of the problems of using the drug is that anti-drug antibodies frequently develop, meaning that discontinuation rates can be as high as 50%, with around a quarter of patients at high risk of experiencing an infusion reaction.
“Methotrexate is a medication we’re very familiar with for other rheumatologic conditions that use biologic medications, and we use this to prevent anti-drug antibodies. So, the MIRROR RCT was a study we performed to examine the pegloticase therapy in combination with methotrexate co therapy,” explained Dr. Botson.
In fact, co-administration of methotrexate and pegloticase was associated with fewer infusion reactions than using pegloticase alone (3% vs. 31%).
Study design and results
A total of 152 patients were included in the trial and were treated with methotrexate at a weekly dose of 15 mg for 2 weeks before being randomized, 2:1, to either continue methotrexate and then receive intravenous pegloticase or receive the latter with a placebo. Pegloticase was given at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment was for 52 weeks, with the primary endpoint of serum uric acid response tested at 6 months.
The reason for the 2-week run-in period with methotrexate was to check that patients would be able to tolerate it, Dr. Botson explained.
The mean age of patients was around 54 years, the majority (> 84%) were male and were White (69%). The average duration of gout was about 14 years, with over 74% having tophi present at screening and experiencing 10-11 flares in the previous year. Baseline serum uric acid averaged at about 9 mg/dL.
Almost three-quarters of the 100 patients (73%) who were treated with the combination completed treatment to week 24 while the corresponding percentage in the placebo arm (n = 52) was 39%. The main reason for stopping was due to lack of efficacy (27% and 61% of cases, respectively), defined as having serum uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL on two consecutive measurements.
The median time to discontinuation was 69 days for those in the placebo arm; “it was non-estimable” in the methotrexate arm, Dr. Botson reported.
The mean change in serum uric acid through to week 24 was higher in the methotrexate than placebo arm, at a respective 7.66 and 5.23 mg/dL, giving a significant mean difference of 2.43 mg/dL.
There was a “dramatic resolution of tophaceous deposits,” Dr. Botson said. Complete resolution of tophi was seen in 34.6% of methotrexate-treated patients versus 13.8% of pegloticase-placebo–treated patients (P = .043).
One of the most common adverse events associated with pegloticase treatment is gout flare, which occurred in about 70% of participants in both study arms. Overall, the addition of methotrexate did not increase the risk for adverse events in general, and of the two deaths seen in the study – both in methotrexate-treated patients – one was because of a heart attack and another due COVID-19, so they were unrelated to study treatment.
In patients with renal insufficiency
Concern was raised during the discussion, however, on how to handle methotrexate use in patients with renal insufficiency.
“That’s been a debate that we’ve had in this study and others,” said Dr. Botson, acknowledging that “methotrexate is often a concern for the nephrologist that we’re co-treating these patients with.” However, no dose adjustments were needed in the study.
“There are some other studies with other immunomodulators that do suggest that other agents could be used that may be a little less potentially renal toxic, but we didn’t see any toxicity in the patients that we had, even in those that had a reduced [glomerular filtration rate],” he added.
Dr. Botson has received research support from Horizon and Radius Health. He also acknowledged receiving speakers fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, ChemoCentryx*, Horizon, Eli Lilly, and Novartis.
Correction, 6/7/22: The name of the company ChemoCentryx was misstated.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Izokibep improves multiple psoriatic arthritis symptoms in phase 2 study
A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.
There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.
Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”
He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”
Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor
Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.
Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.
Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.”
So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.
Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis
The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.
ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.
“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.
Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.
More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.
There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.
“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.
“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.
“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.
As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.
Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.
Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.
Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.
Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche
Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.
A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.
There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.
Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”
He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”
Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor
Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.
Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.
Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.”
So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.
Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis
The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.
ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.
“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.
Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.
More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.
There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.
“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.
“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.
“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.
As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.
Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.
Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.
Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.
Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche
Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.
A host of psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be improved by the investigational interleukin (IL)-17 blocker izokibep, according to the results of a phase 2 trial presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Around half of all participants in the trial who were treated with izokibep achieved a 50% or higher improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at week 16, the trial’s primary endpoint. This was highly significant (P = .0003) when compared to the control group, where only 13% of patients given a placebo achieved an ACR50.
There was also a significant improvement in skin symptoms, as assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and resolution of enthesitis in 88% of patients given the highest dose of izokibep.
Aurelie Najm, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, who tweeted about the main results, said that the data also looked “promising for the enthesitis domain” with a “safety profile similar to that observed in PsO [psoriasis].”Peter Taylor, MA, PhD, FRCP, FRCPE, of the University of Oxford in England, said: “The improvements demonstrated in arthritis, psoriasis, and enthesitis are exciting relative to responses reported for the current standard of care.”
He continued, in a statement issued jointly by Affibody, Acelyrin, and Immagene Biopharmaceuticals – the three companies assessing izokibep’s therapeutic potential – that the drug “seems promising” and that he was “eager to see its continued development for patients.”
Small and potent, a novel IL-17 inhibitor
Izokibep is an antibody mimetic that inhibits IL-17A designed to “overcome the limitations of monoclonal antibodies,” according to its developers.
Due to its small molecular size – reportedly about one-tenth of the size of a monoclonal antibody – they say that levels of high drug exposure can be achieved from a single, subcutaneous injection rather than an intravenous infusion, which is needed for monoclonal antibodies.
Moreover, izokibep’s small size means it could potentially reach target tissues “that may otherwise be inaccessible to the much larger monoclonal antibodies.”
So far more than 300 patients have been treated with izokibep, some for up to 3 years, but not all have had psoriatic arthritis. Indeed, the drug has been tested in patients with psoriasis, and there are a few actively recruiting trials including one in ankylosing spondylitis, another in noninfective uveitis, and one in the rare and painful skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa.
Testing two doses of izokibep in psoriatic arthritis
The trial presented at the EULAR 2022 Congress tested two doses of izokibep – 40 mg and 80 mg – given by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks – against placebo in 135 adult patients with active psoriatic arthritis. For inclusion in the trial patients had to have at least three swollen and at least three tender joints and have had an inadequate response to prior therapy including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.
Principle investigator Frank Behrens, MD, of Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany, reported that it was a multicenter effort conducted at 22 European sites with the primary endpoint being an ACR50 response at 16 weeks. This was met by 52% of patients given the 80-mg dose of izokibep, 48% of patients given the 40-mg dose of izokibep, and just 13% of patients who had been randomized to placebo.
ACR20 and ACR70 response were one of several key secondary endpoints tested, again at 16 weeks, with a respective 75%, 60%, and 20% of patients in each group achieving the lower response target and 20%, 32%, and 5%, achieving the more stringent response target.
“Izokibep demonstrated a robust efficacy in the musculoskeletal arthritic domains, but also in the extra-articular musculoskeletal domain,” Dr. Behrens said.
Not only that, but the values were “at the top end” of what’s been demonstrated for drugs currently regarded as the standard of care.
More than 80% of patients achieved a PASI75 response and 57% a PASI50 response with the two doses of izokibep, and 63%-88% achieved a resolution of enthesitis. The latter was measured using the Leeds Enthesitis Index.
There was also improvement in quality of life, measured using the Psoriatic Impact of Disease questionnaire, with a percentage increase beyond the MCID of 31%-41% with izokibep versus 12% for placebo.
“These are the first data of the phase 2 study in psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Behrens reported.
“The safety profile was consistent with placebo,” with the only “standout aspect” being a higher number of injection-site reactions with izokibep versus placebo; but there were no serious infections, no serious adverse events,” he added.
“The interesting thing is from the preclinical research there was no dose-limiting toxicity with izokibep, therefore, I think the plan in the future is maybe to increase the dose to optimize treatment outcome based on the really robust effectiveness we see here in the first study in this clinical trial,” he said.
As a small study, stratifying results by gender wasn’t an option, Dr. Behrens noted in answering a question during the discussion period, but might be something that will be included in future and larger trials based on the post-hoc findings of other IL-17 trials.
Moving forward, the next step will involve a phase 2b/3 pivotal study which will likely include a higher dosing regimen of 160 mg once weekly alongside the twice-weekly dosing used in this trial.
Izokibep is an investigational treatment being developed by Affibody AB, Sweden, and ACELYRIN, USA. All three companies funded the phase 2 trial and were involved in the study design, conduct and reporting of results.
Dr. Behrens and Dr. Taylor were investigators in the study.
Dr. Behrens disclosed he was a shareholder of Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Novartis; part of the speakers’ bureau for Amgen, Horizon, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie; a consultant of AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc.; and had received grant or research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche
Dr. Taylor acknowledged grant or research support from: Celgene and Galapagos, and acted as a consultant for AbbVie, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS