User login
Emapalumab produces major responses in macrophage activation syndrome
MADRID – Initial results of an ongoing small pilot study of the anti-interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) monoclonal antibody emapalumab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of glucocorticoid-refractory macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).
“By week 4 there was a complete response in all six patients treated. All of them had failed conventional therapy,” Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results are the first of a multicenter, pilot study with twin protocols in Europe and North America. Emapalumab (Gamifant) is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) unresponsive to conventional therapy.
The study is enrolling children with MAS complicating SJIA that is unresponsive to high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids. Emapalumab, which has been shown to neutralize IFN-gamma in animal models, is being administered in an initial dose of 6 mg/kg followed by doses of 3 mg/kg every 3 days for 4 weeks.
MAS is a common complication of rheumatic diseases, particularly SJIA, according to Dr. De Benedetti. It has been characterized as a secondary form of HLH involving an excessive activation and expansion of macrophages as well as T cells. It can produce a wide variety of complications, including hepatosplenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities. If uncontrolled, it can lead to organ failure and death.
Among the first six patients, four had confirmed SJIA and two had presumptive SJIA. The average age was 11 years with a range of 2 to 25 years. Four of the patients were female.
Many of the patients had failed therapies in addition to glucocorticoids, such as cyclosporine and anakinra. A diagnosis of HLH and prior treatment with a biologic therapy were exclusion criteria.
By 8 weeks, six had a complete response, which included the resolution of symptoms by normalization of ferritin, liver enzymes, and D-dimers. In three of the six patients, a complete response was achieved by week 4.
“Steroid tapering by investigator discretion was permitted, and four of the six patients had a meaningful tapering of steroids within 8 weeks,” Dr. De Benedetti reported.
Of the three serious adverse events recorded so far, only reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was attributed to emapalumab. This infection resolved with treatment. Several other infections observed over the course of the study were not thought to be related to treatment.
The initial results have encouraged an expansion of the study protocol in Europe where several treatment centers are expected to begin enrolling patients shortly. A second parallel study protocol will begin soon in North America, but no patient had been treated at the time that Dr. De Benedetti presented these initial findings.
Based on evidence that IFN-gamma drives hyperinflammation and hypercytokinemia in MAS, the initial results with emapalumab are encouraging, according to Dr. De Benedetti. He said the results not only provide evidence that emapalumab is active in MAS but support the pathogenic role of IFN-gamma in this disease.
Dr. De Benedetti reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including SOBI, the sponsor of this study.
SOURCE: De Benedetti F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2):178. Abstract OPO204, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3341.
MADRID – Initial results of an ongoing small pilot study of the anti-interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) monoclonal antibody emapalumab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of glucocorticoid-refractory macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).
“By week 4 there was a complete response in all six patients treated. All of them had failed conventional therapy,” Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results are the first of a multicenter, pilot study with twin protocols in Europe and North America. Emapalumab (Gamifant) is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) unresponsive to conventional therapy.
The study is enrolling children with MAS complicating SJIA that is unresponsive to high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids. Emapalumab, which has been shown to neutralize IFN-gamma in animal models, is being administered in an initial dose of 6 mg/kg followed by doses of 3 mg/kg every 3 days for 4 weeks.
MAS is a common complication of rheumatic diseases, particularly SJIA, according to Dr. De Benedetti. It has been characterized as a secondary form of HLH involving an excessive activation and expansion of macrophages as well as T cells. It can produce a wide variety of complications, including hepatosplenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities. If uncontrolled, it can lead to organ failure and death.
Among the first six patients, four had confirmed SJIA and two had presumptive SJIA. The average age was 11 years with a range of 2 to 25 years. Four of the patients were female.
Many of the patients had failed therapies in addition to glucocorticoids, such as cyclosporine and anakinra. A diagnosis of HLH and prior treatment with a biologic therapy were exclusion criteria.
By 8 weeks, six had a complete response, which included the resolution of symptoms by normalization of ferritin, liver enzymes, and D-dimers. In three of the six patients, a complete response was achieved by week 4.
“Steroid tapering by investigator discretion was permitted, and four of the six patients had a meaningful tapering of steroids within 8 weeks,” Dr. De Benedetti reported.
Of the three serious adverse events recorded so far, only reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was attributed to emapalumab. This infection resolved with treatment. Several other infections observed over the course of the study were not thought to be related to treatment.
The initial results have encouraged an expansion of the study protocol in Europe where several treatment centers are expected to begin enrolling patients shortly. A second parallel study protocol will begin soon in North America, but no patient had been treated at the time that Dr. De Benedetti presented these initial findings.
Based on evidence that IFN-gamma drives hyperinflammation and hypercytokinemia in MAS, the initial results with emapalumab are encouraging, according to Dr. De Benedetti. He said the results not only provide evidence that emapalumab is active in MAS but support the pathogenic role of IFN-gamma in this disease.
Dr. De Benedetti reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including SOBI, the sponsor of this study.
SOURCE: De Benedetti F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2):178. Abstract OPO204, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3341.
MADRID – Initial results of an ongoing small pilot study of the anti-interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) monoclonal antibody emapalumab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of glucocorticoid-refractory macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).
“By week 4 there was a complete response in all six patients treated. All of them had failed conventional therapy,” Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results are the first of a multicenter, pilot study with twin protocols in Europe and North America. Emapalumab (Gamifant) is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) unresponsive to conventional therapy.
The study is enrolling children with MAS complicating SJIA that is unresponsive to high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids. Emapalumab, which has been shown to neutralize IFN-gamma in animal models, is being administered in an initial dose of 6 mg/kg followed by doses of 3 mg/kg every 3 days for 4 weeks.
MAS is a common complication of rheumatic diseases, particularly SJIA, according to Dr. De Benedetti. It has been characterized as a secondary form of HLH involving an excessive activation and expansion of macrophages as well as T cells. It can produce a wide variety of complications, including hepatosplenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities. If uncontrolled, it can lead to organ failure and death.
Among the first six patients, four had confirmed SJIA and two had presumptive SJIA. The average age was 11 years with a range of 2 to 25 years. Four of the patients were female.
Many of the patients had failed therapies in addition to glucocorticoids, such as cyclosporine and anakinra. A diagnosis of HLH and prior treatment with a biologic therapy were exclusion criteria.
By 8 weeks, six had a complete response, which included the resolution of symptoms by normalization of ferritin, liver enzymes, and D-dimers. In three of the six patients, a complete response was achieved by week 4.
“Steroid tapering by investigator discretion was permitted, and four of the six patients had a meaningful tapering of steroids within 8 weeks,” Dr. De Benedetti reported.
Of the three serious adverse events recorded so far, only reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was attributed to emapalumab. This infection resolved with treatment. Several other infections observed over the course of the study were not thought to be related to treatment.
The initial results have encouraged an expansion of the study protocol in Europe where several treatment centers are expected to begin enrolling patients shortly. A second parallel study protocol will begin soon in North America, but no patient had been treated at the time that Dr. De Benedetti presented these initial findings.
Based on evidence that IFN-gamma drives hyperinflammation and hypercytokinemia in MAS, the initial results with emapalumab are encouraging, according to Dr. De Benedetti. He said the results not only provide evidence that emapalumab is active in MAS but support the pathogenic role of IFN-gamma in this disease.
Dr. De Benedetti reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including SOBI, the sponsor of this study.
SOURCE: De Benedetti F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2):178. Abstract OPO204, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3341.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Drug efficacy in phase 2 RA trials often missing in phase 3
MADRID – The efficacy results from new rheumatoid arthritis drugs tested in many phase 2 trials run over the past couple of decades have routinely overestimated the efficacy of many of the drugs tested when compared with how the same agents performed in subsequent phase 3 testing, according to an analysis of published results from 44 pairs of phase 2 and 3 trials.
Based on the percentage of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who showed an American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) in their joint symptoms, the 44 phase 2 trials overestimated efficacy by an average of 39% when compared with the ACR20 responses seen in paired phase 3 trials, Andreas Kerschbaumer, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The ACR50 results overstated efficacy by an average of 34% when compared with phase 3 results for the same drugs, and the ACR70 endpoint showed drug efficacy that averaged 39% better during phase 2 studies than it did in the phase 3 trials. All three between-group differences were statistically significant, said Dr. Kerschbaumer, a rheumatologist at the Medical University of Vienna.
“Active treatment arms of phase 2 studies systematically overestimated efficacy when compared with subsequent phase 3 studies,” he said.
“Many researchers had already seen this, and realized that phase 2 trials often overestimated [efficacy], but no one has ever shown this systematically,” Dr. Kerschbaumer said in an interview. The same problem also appears to affect trials of oncology drugs, he noted, but a unique feature of RA studies allowed him and his colleagues to examine the ubiquity and persistence of this phase 2 bias in rheumatology trials over time: ongoing reliance during more than 2 decades of experience on the ACR20 response as the primary endpoint of RA drug trials. Even with this advantage, which allowed inclusion of 44 pairs of studies, “it was very surprising to find a statistically significant effect in the meta-analysis,” he said.
He and his associates also ran a further analysis that looked for measured parameters that showed significant correlation with mismatch of the phase 2 and 3 results, and this identified two apparently causal factors: having a low number of swollen and tender joints as an inclusion criterion for patients and using a 28-joint count rather than a 66-joint count for assessing disease activity during the study. The analysis lacked enough information to provide clear evidence on why these two aspects of patient assessment could lead to misleading phase 2 results, but Dr. Kerschbaumer believed the findings were clear enough to influence future trial design.
Going forward, trialists “should be very careful of how you include patients [in studies]. This is what our study shows. And they should not use 28 joints but 66. The higher the number of swollen and tender joints detected for study inclusion, the less the possibility to overestimate [efficacy]. It’s easier to achieve ACR20 when you look at fewer joints.”
Until now, companies that sponsor drug trials had an incentive to use a lower minimum number of swollen and tender joints for enrolled patients because it made enrollment easier, he noted. The downside, in addition to overstating efficacy at the phase 2 stage, is subjecting patients to treatments in phase 3 trials with a reduced likelihood for success.
Dr. Kerschbaumer offered two examples of drugs that showed promising RA efficacy based on ACR20 responses in phase 2 trial results that were followed by neutral phase 3 trial outcomes. One episode involved tabalumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Aug;74[8]:1567-70), and a second was a trial of fostamatinib (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Dec;66[12]:3255-64).
The systematic review he led identified 44 study pairs run since the late 1990s that met all the study criteria, which covered 19 different drugs tested in more than 17,000 RA patients.
What the results showed was “just an association, so we must be careful not to overstate the results, but we saw something that may explain what people have seen [anecdotally] over the past 20 years,” he said. “Some people get very excited by phase 2 results, but we need to be careful about interpreting these outcomes.” Validation of the finding would require analysis of patient-level data, something that would be hard to obtain for a large number of phase 2 and 3 trials, Dr. Kerschbaumer noted.
Dr. Kerschbaumer has been a speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Kerschbaumer A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):191-2. Abstract OP0229, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5161.
MADRID – The efficacy results from new rheumatoid arthritis drugs tested in many phase 2 trials run over the past couple of decades have routinely overestimated the efficacy of many of the drugs tested when compared with how the same agents performed in subsequent phase 3 testing, according to an analysis of published results from 44 pairs of phase 2 and 3 trials.
Based on the percentage of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who showed an American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) in their joint symptoms, the 44 phase 2 trials overestimated efficacy by an average of 39% when compared with the ACR20 responses seen in paired phase 3 trials, Andreas Kerschbaumer, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The ACR50 results overstated efficacy by an average of 34% when compared with phase 3 results for the same drugs, and the ACR70 endpoint showed drug efficacy that averaged 39% better during phase 2 studies than it did in the phase 3 trials. All three between-group differences were statistically significant, said Dr. Kerschbaumer, a rheumatologist at the Medical University of Vienna.
“Active treatment arms of phase 2 studies systematically overestimated efficacy when compared with subsequent phase 3 studies,” he said.
“Many researchers had already seen this, and realized that phase 2 trials often overestimated [efficacy], but no one has ever shown this systematically,” Dr. Kerschbaumer said in an interview. The same problem also appears to affect trials of oncology drugs, he noted, but a unique feature of RA studies allowed him and his colleagues to examine the ubiquity and persistence of this phase 2 bias in rheumatology trials over time: ongoing reliance during more than 2 decades of experience on the ACR20 response as the primary endpoint of RA drug trials. Even with this advantage, which allowed inclusion of 44 pairs of studies, “it was very surprising to find a statistically significant effect in the meta-analysis,” he said.
He and his associates also ran a further analysis that looked for measured parameters that showed significant correlation with mismatch of the phase 2 and 3 results, and this identified two apparently causal factors: having a low number of swollen and tender joints as an inclusion criterion for patients and using a 28-joint count rather than a 66-joint count for assessing disease activity during the study. The analysis lacked enough information to provide clear evidence on why these two aspects of patient assessment could lead to misleading phase 2 results, but Dr. Kerschbaumer believed the findings were clear enough to influence future trial design.
Going forward, trialists “should be very careful of how you include patients [in studies]. This is what our study shows. And they should not use 28 joints but 66. The higher the number of swollen and tender joints detected for study inclusion, the less the possibility to overestimate [efficacy]. It’s easier to achieve ACR20 when you look at fewer joints.”
Until now, companies that sponsor drug trials had an incentive to use a lower minimum number of swollen and tender joints for enrolled patients because it made enrollment easier, he noted. The downside, in addition to overstating efficacy at the phase 2 stage, is subjecting patients to treatments in phase 3 trials with a reduced likelihood for success.
Dr. Kerschbaumer offered two examples of drugs that showed promising RA efficacy based on ACR20 responses in phase 2 trial results that were followed by neutral phase 3 trial outcomes. One episode involved tabalumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Aug;74[8]:1567-70), and a second was a trial of fostamatinib (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Dec;66[12]:3255-64).
The systematic review he led identified 44 study pairs run since the late 1990s that met all the study criteria, which covered 19 different drugs tested in more than 17,000 RA patients.
What the results showed was “just an association, so we must be careful not to overstate the results, but we saw something that may explain what people have seen [anecdotally] over the past 20 years,” he said. “Some people get very excited by phase 2 results, but we need to be careful about interpreting these outcomes.” Validation of the finding would require analysis of patient-level data, something that would be hard to obtain for a large number of phase 2 and 3 trials, Dr. Kerschbaumer noted.
Dr. Kerschbaumer has been a speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Kerschbaumer A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):191-2. Abstract OP0229, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5161.
MADRID – The efficacy results from new rheumatoid arthritis drugs tested in many phase 2 trials run over the past couple of decades have routinely overestimated the efficacy of many of the drugs tested when compared with how the same agents performed in subsequent phase 3 testing, according to an analysis of published results from 44 pairs of phase 2 and 3 trials.
Based on the percentage of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who showed an American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) in their joint symptoms, the 44 phase 2 trials overestimated efficacy by an average of 39% when compared with the ACR20 responses seen in paired phase 3 trials, Andreas Kerschbaumer, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The ACR50 results overstated efficacy by an average of 34% when compared with phase 3 results for the same drugs, and the ACR70 endpoint showed drug efficacy that averaged 39% better during phase 2 studies than it did in the phase 3 trials. All three between-group differences were statistically significant, said Dr. Kerschbaumer, a rheumatologist at the Medical University of Vienna.
“Active treatment arms of phase 2 studies systematically overestimated efficacy when compared with subsequent phase 3 studies,” he said.
“Many researchers had already seen this, and realized that phase 2 trials often overestimated [efficacy], but no one has ever shown this systematically,” Dr. Kerschbaumer said in an interview. The same problem also appears to affect trials of oncology drugs, he noted, but a unique feature of RA studies allowed him and his colleagues to examine the ubiquity and persistence of this phase 2 bias in rheumatology trials over time: ongoing reliance during more than 2 decades of experience on the ACR20 response as the primary endpoint of RA drug trials. Even with this advantage, which allowed inclusion of 44 pairs of studies, “it was very surprising to find a statistically significant effect in the meta-analysis,” he said.
He and his associates also ran a further analysis that looked for measured parameters that showed significant correlation with mismatch of the phase 2 and 3 results, and this identified two apparently causal factors: having a low number of swollen and tender joints as an inclusion criterion for patients and using a 28-joint count rather than a 66-joint count for assessing disease activity during the study. The analysis lacked enough information to provide clear evidence on why these two aspects of patient assessment could lead to misleading phase 2 results, but Dr. Kerschbaumer believed the findings were clear enough to influence future trial design.
Going forward, trialists “should be very careful of how you include patients [in studies]. This is what our study shows. And they should not use 28 joints but 66. The higher the number of swollen and tender joints detected for study inclusion, the less the possibility to overestimate [efficacy]. It’s easier to achieve ACR20 when you look at fewer joints.”
Until now, companies that sponsor drug trials had an incentive to use a lower minimum number of swollen and tender joints for enrolled patients because it made enrollment easier, he noted. The downside, in addition to overstating efficacy at the phase 2 stage, is subjecting patients to treatments in phase 3 trials with a reduced likelihood for success.
Dr. Kerschbaumer offered two examples of drugs that showed promising RA efficacy based on ACR20 responses in phase 2 trial results that were followed by neutral phase 3 trial outcomes. One episode involved tabalumab (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Aug;74[8]:1567-70), and a second was a trial of fostamatinib (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Dec;66[12]:3255-64).
The systematic review he led identified 44 study pairs run since the late 1990s that met all the study criteria, which covered 19 different drugs tested in more than 17,000 RA patients.
What the results showed was “just an association, so we must be careful not to overstate the results, but we saw something that may explain what people have seen [anecdotally] over the past 20 years,” he said. “Some people get very excited by phase 2 results, but we need to be careful about interpreting these outcomes.” Validation of the finding would require analysis of patient-level data, something that would be hard to obtain for a large number of phase 2 and 3 trials, Dr. Kerschbaumer noted.
Dr. Kerschbaumer has been a speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer.
SOURCE: Kerschbaumer A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):191-2. Abstract OP0229, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.5161.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Tildrakizumab shows positive effects in active psoriatic arthritis
MADRID – Tildrakizumab, a high-affinity anti–interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody, significantly improved joint and skin manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis in an ongoing phase 2b study.
“By week 24, all four doses of tildrakizumab were significantly more efficacious than placebo,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of the division of rheumatology clinical research at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology. This included patient-rated pain, he observed.
Furthermore, “there was a clear separation between tildrakizumab and placebo as early as 8 weeks” for the trial’s primary endpoint, a 20% response rate on American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks.
The study (NCT02980692), which is projected to complete next year, was conducted to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of tildrakizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Tildrakizumab is already approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in multiple countries, Dr. Mease pointed out. Indeed, the drug – which is marketed as Ilumya in the United States and as Ilumetri in the Europe Union – was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March last year based on the positive results of the phase 3 reSURFACE clinical trials program (Drugs. 2018;78[8]:845-9).
In presenting interim findings from the study, Dr. Mease observed that “it looked like shortening the dosing interval from Q12 to Q4 weeks for the 200-mg dose did not result in a measurable difference in skin or joint responses.”
The trial included 391 of 500 adult patients who were screened and then randomized to one of four tildrakizumab dosing groups or placebo; there were 78 patients treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg once every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 79 who were treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg once every 12 weeks (Q12W). A further 77 patients were treated with a 100 mg tildrakizumab dose Q12W, 78 patients with a 20 mg tildrakizumab dose Q12W, and 79 patients were treated with a placebo Q4W.
The mean age of patients included in the study was around 48 years. A total of 55% were female, and more than 96% were white. Across the groups, patients had a median of 7-8 tender joints and about 14-19 swollen joints, and 53%-70% had at least 3% psoriasis body surface area involvement.
The primary endpoint of ACR20 at 24 weeks was met by 79.5%, 77.2%, 71.4%, and 73.1% of patients in the tildrakizumab 200-mg Q4W, 200-mg Q12W, 100-mg Q12W, and 20-mg Q12W groups, and by 50.6% of the placebo-treated patients. “So even the very low dose had an effect,” Dr. Mease observed, also acknowledging the “very high placebo response.”
An ACR50 response was achieved by a respective 53.6%, 50.6%, 45.5%, 39.7%, 19.7%, and 24.1% of patients. ACR70 response rates were also “proportionately lower” than the ACR20 responses at around 25%-29% for the tildrakizumab groups and 16% for placebo.
“The skin scores were as expected quite high,” Dr. Mease said. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response rate was 79.6% in the tildrakizumab 200-mg Q12W group, 64.2% in the 200-mg Q4W group, 55.6% in the 100-mg Q12W group, 46.3% in the 20-mg Q12W group, and just 16.7% in the placebo group. The respective percentages of patients achieving a PASI 90 response rate were 50%, 47.2%, 38.9%, 36.6%, and 7.1%.
Patient pain assessment showed a clear reduction with tildrakizumab versus placebo treatment. “We see statistical separation between all of the tildrakizumab arms and placebo,” Dr. Mease said. “A greater than 50% response in pain is considered major clinical improvement, and that was achieved by all of the tildrakizumab arms.”
As for enthesitis, the mean change in Leeds Enthesitis Scores from baseline to week 24 were greater with all tildrakizumab doses than with placebo, although a high placebo response was again apparent.
“In general, the safety profile was very good for this agent,” Dr. Mease said. Any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) occurred in 156 of 317 (49%) tildrakizumab-treated patients and in 34 of 70 (49%) placebo-treated patients. The rates of any severe TEAE were 2.2% for the tildrakizumab arms and 2.5% for placebo. Any TEAE related to treatment occurred in a respective 11.2% and 12.7%, but there were no discontinuations because of adverse events, nor were there any major cardiac adverse events, cases of malignancy, or deaths caused by TEAEs. There was a single serious infection, a case of tonsillitis, which occurred with tildrakizumab treatment.
In response to a question after his presentation, Dr. Measure noted: “In the psoriasis trials with this agent, even a single dose yielded a fairly meaningful PASI 75 responses out for extremely long periods of time, 6–12 months. So, it looks like the Q12 dosing is going to be reasonable and convenient for patients”. He also agreed with a comment that the more frequent dosing seemed to be linked to inferior responses in the skin.
The study was sponsored by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulting fees, and/or speaker fees from 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.
SOURCE: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-9. Abstract LB0002, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8669
MADRID – Tildrakizumab, a high-affinity anti–interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody, significantly improved joint and skin manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis in an ongoing phase 2b study.
“By week 24, all four doses of tildrakizumab were significantly more efficacious than placebo,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of the division of rheumatology clinical research at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology. This included patient-rated pain, he observed.
Furthermore, “there was a clear separation between tildrakizumab and placebo as early as 8 weeks” for the trial’s primary endpoint, a 20% response rate on American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks.
The study (NCT02980692), which is projected to complete next year, was conducted to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of tildrakizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Tildrakizumab is already approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in multiple countries, Dr. Mease pointed out. Indeed, the drug – which is marketed as Ilumya in the United States and as Ilumetri in the Europe Union – was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March last year based on the positive results of the phase 3 reSURFACE clinical trials program (Drugs. 2018;78[8]:845-9).
In presenting interim findings from the study, Dr. Mease observed that “it looked like shortening the dosing interval from Q12 to Q4 weeks for the 200-mg dose did not result in a measurable difference in skin or joint responses.”
The trial included 391 of 500 adult patients who were screened and then randomized to one of four tildrakizumab dosing groups or placebo; there were 78 patients treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg once every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 79 who were treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg once every 12 weeks (Q12W). A further 77 patients were treated with a 100 mg tildrakizumab dose Q12W, 78 patients with a 20 mg tildrakizumab dose Q12W, and 79 patients were treated with a placebo Q4W.
The mean age of patients included in the study was around 48 years. A total of 55% were female, and more than 96% were white. Across the groups, patients had a median of 7-8 tender joints and about 14-19 swollen joints, and 53%-70% had at least 3% psoriasis body surface area involvement.
The primary endpoint of ACR20 at 24 weeks was met by 79.5%, 77.2%, 71.4%, and 73.1% of patients in the tildrakizumab 200-mg Q4W, 200-mg Q12W, 100-mg Q12W, and 20-mg Q12W groups, and by 50.6% of the placebo-treated patients. “So even the very low dose had an effect,” Dr. Mease observed, also acknowledging the “very high placebo response.”
An ACR50 response was achieved by a respective 53.6%, 50.6%, 45.5%, 39.7%, 19.7%, and 24.1% of patients. ACR70 response rates were also “proportionately lower” than the ACR20 responses at around 25%-29% for the tildrakizumab groups and 16% for placebo.
“The skin scores were as expected quite high,” Dr. Mease said. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response rate was 79.6% in the tildrakizumab 200-mg Q12W group, 64.2% in the 200-mg Q4W group, 55.6% in the 100-mg Q12W group, 46.3% in the 20-mg Q12W group, and just 16.7% in the placebo group. The respective percentages of patients achieving a PASI 90 response rate were 50%, 47.2%, 38.9%, 36.6%, and 7.1%.
Patient pain assessment showed a clear reduction with tildrakizumab versus placebo treatment. “We see statistical separation between all of the tildrakizumab arms and placebo,” Dr. Mease said. “A greater than 50% response in pain is considered major clinical improvement, and that was achieved by all of the tildrakizumab arms.”
As for enthesitis, the mean change in Leeds Enthesitis Scores from baseline to week 24 were greater with all tildrakizumab doses than with placebo, although a high placebo response was again apparent.
“In general, the safety profile was very good for this agent,” Dr. Mease said. Any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) occurred in 156 of 317 (49%) tildrakizumab-treated patients and in 34 of 70 (49%) placebo-treated patients. The rates of any severe TEAE were 2.2% for the tildrakizumab arms and 2.5% for placebo. Any TEAE related to treatment occurred in a respective 11.2% and 12.7%, but there were no discontinuations because of adverse events, nor were there any major cardiac adverse events, cases of malignancy, or deaths caused by TEAEs. There was a single serious infection, a case of tonsillitis, which occurred with tildrakizumab treatment.
In response to a question after his presentation, Dr. Measure noted: “In the psoriasis trials with this agent, even a single dose yielded a fairly meaningful PASI 75 responses out for extremely long periods of time, 6–12 months. So, it looks like the Q12 dosing is going to be reasonable and convenient for patients”. He also agreed with a comment that the more frequent dosing seemed to be linked to inferior responses in the skin.
The study was sponsored by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulting fees, and/or speaker fees from 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.
SOURCE: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-9. Abstract LB0002, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8669
MADRID – Tildrakizumab, a high-affinity anti–interleukin-23p19 monoclonal antibody, significantly improved joint and skin manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis in an ongoing phase 2b study.
“By week 24, all four doses of tildrakizumab were significantly more efficacious than placebo,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of the division of rheumatology clinical research at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology. This included patient-rated pain, he observed.
Furthermore, “there was a clear separation between tildrakizumab and placebo as early as 8 weeks” for the trial’s primary endpoint, a 20% response rate on American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks.
The study (NCT02980692), which is projected to complete next year, was conducted to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of tildrakizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Tildrakizumab is already approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in multiple countries, Dr. Mease pointed out. Indeed, the drug – which is marketed as Ilumya in the United States and as Ilumetri in the Europe Union – was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in March last year based on the positive results of the phase 3 reSURFACE clinical trials program (Drugs. 2018;78[8]:845-9).
In presenting interim findings from the study, Dr. Mease observed that “it looked like shortening the dosing interval from Q12 to Q4 weeks for the 200-mg dose did not result in a measurable difference in skin or joint responses.”
The trial included 391 of 500 adult patients who were screened and then randomized to one of four tildrakizumab dosing groups or placebo; there were 78 patients treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg once every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 79 who were treated with tildrakizumab 200 mg once every 12 weeks (Q12W). A further 77 patients were treated with a 100 mg tildrakizumab dose Q12W, 78 patients with a 20 mg tildrakizumab dose Q12W, and 79 patients were treated with a placebo Q4W.
The mean age of patients included in the study was around 48 years. A total of 55% were female, and more than 96% were white. Across the groups, patients had a median of 7-8 tender joints and about 14-19 swollen joints, and 53%-70% had at least 3% psoriasis body surface area involvement.
The primary endpoint of ACR20 at 24 weeks was met by 79.5%, 77.2%, 71.4%, and 73.1% of patients in the tildrakizumab 200-mg Q4W, 200-mg Q12W, 100-mg Q12W, and 20-mg Q12W groups, and by 50.6% of the placebo-treated patients. “So even the very low dose had an effect,” Dr. Mease observed, also acknowledging the “very high placebo response.”
An ACR50 response was achieved by a respective 53.6%, 50.6%, 45.5%, 39.7%, 19.7%, and 24.1% of patients. ACR70 response rates were also “proportionately lower” than the ACR20 responses at around 25%-29% for the tildrakizumab groups and 16% for placebo.
“The skin scores were as expected quite high,” Dr. Mease said. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 response rate was 79.6% in the tildrakizumab 200-mg Q12W group, 64.2% in the 200-mg Q4W group, 55.6% in the 100-mg Q12W group, 46.3% in the 20-mg Q12W group, and just 16.7% in the placebo group. The respective percentages of patients achieving a PASI 90 response rate were 50%, 47.2%, 38.9%, 36.6%, and 7.1%.
Patient pain assessment showed a clear reduction with tildrakizumab versus placebo treatment. “We see statistical separation between all of the tildrakizumab arms and placebo,” Dr. Mease said. “A greater than 50% response in pain is considered major clinical improvement, and that was achieved by all of the tildrakizumab arms.”
As for enthesitis, the mean change in Leeds Enthesitis Scores from baseline to week 24 were greater with all tildrakizumab doses than with placebo, although a high placebo response was again apparent.
“In general, the safety profile was very good for this agent,” Dr. Mease said. Any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) occurred in 156 of 317 (49%) tildrakizumab-treated patients and in 34 of 70 (49%) placebo-treated patients. The rates of any severe TEAE were 2.2% for the tildrakizumab arms and 2.5% for placebo. Any TEAE related to treatment occurred in a respective 11.2% and 12.7%, but there were no discontinuations because of adverse events, nor were there any major cardiac adverse events, cases of malignancy, or deaths caused by TEAEs. There was a single serious infection, a case of tonsillitis, which occurred with tildrakizumab treatment.
In response to a question after his presentation, Dr. Measure noted: “In the psoriasis trials with this agent, even a single dose yielded a fairly meaningful PASI 75 responses out for extremely long periods of time, 6–12 months. So, it looks like the Q12 dosing is going to be reasonable and convenient for patients”. He also agreed with a comment that the more frequent dosing seemed to be linked to inferior responses in the skin.
The study was sponsored by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulting fees, and/or speaker fees from 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.
SOURCE: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-9. Abstract LB0002, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8669
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Tildrakizumab (Ilumya) significantly improved joint and skin manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Major finding: At 24 weeks, more than 70% of patients treated with tildrakizumab versus 50% of those given placebo achieved an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response.
Study details: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, phase 2b study to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of tildrakizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. Dr. Mease has received research grants, consulting fees, speaker fees, or all, from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Leo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries.
Source: Mease PJ et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):77-9. Abstract LB0002, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8669
Repeated ANA testing after negative result of little diagnostic value
MADRID – Repeated antinuclear antibody testing after a negative result has limited use for the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatologic conditions, according to data from a multicenter, retrospective analysis that considered a 7-year period.
Considering more than 7,875 repeated ANA tests in 4,887 patients, “the vast majority of results didn’t change,” Ai Li Yeo, MBBS, a PhD candidate, rheumatologist, and infectious disease fellow at Monash University, Melbourne, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
ANA tests were repeated between 2 and as many as 45 times in individual patients, she reported, but the results of 79% of these tests remained unchanged – 45% of tests were persistently negative and 34% persistently positive using a cutoff titer of 1:160.
“Our study showed that there was a very low yield in repeating an ANA test for the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatological conditions unless there was evidence of evolving multisystem clinical features,” Dr. Yeo said.
Indeed, the positive predictive value was just 0.01. “So for a hundred patients staring off with a negative ANA results that on repeat testing became positive, the probability is that one patient will have a new ANA-associated rheumatological condition diagnosis,” Dr. Yeo said.
“ANA testing is frequently performed and is part of the classification criteria for autoimmune conditions such as lupus and scleroderma,” she observed. However, the test provides no information on the severity or activity of the disease, and the value of serial monitoring for such conditions is unclear.
“Minimizing unnecessary tests is a global health economic priority,” Dr. Yeo said. She noted that there are multiple initiatives in place to try to open a dialog about using health care resources most effectively, such as ‘Choosing Wisely’ set up by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation.
The aim of the present analysis was to calculate the cost of repeated ANA testing and to see if any change in the ANA result was associated with new diagnoses of ANA-associated rheumatological conditions.
The analysis considered more than 36,700 tests that were performed on samples from more than 28,800 patients within the Monash Health tertiary health network between 2011 and 2018. Of these, 22,657 (62%) had given a negative result and 14,058 (38%) had given a positive result.
“Not surprisingly, the age of those who tested positive was significantly higher than those who tested negative,” Dr. Yeo said (52.6 vs. 48.9 years; P less than .001). There was also a higher number of women than men tested, and women more often tested positive.
Around one-fifth of tests performed were repeat tests, of which 511 (6.5%) changed from being negative to positive over a median of 1.71 years.
“A small percentage of people alternated between results,” Dr. Yeo acknowledged, with 9.4% of people going from a positive to a negative result; 10.5% moving from a negative to a positive result, and 1.9% going from positive to negative to positive.
With repeated tests, just five new diagnoses of ANA-associated rheumatologic conditions were made: two cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), one case of scleroderma, and two cases of undifferentiated connective tissue disease. There was a range of ANA titers and patterns and evolving clinical features of a multisystem disease.
Based on the direct costs of ANA testing in her health care system, not performing repeated tests could yield significant savings, Dr. Yeo said, a 21.4% reduction, in fact, based on this analysis. The cost of an ANA test in Australia ranges from 15 to 46 euros, making the cost of all tests in this analysis 564,745 euros. Taking away the cost of all the single ANA tests performed (443,209 euros) gives a potential cost saving of more than 121,000 euros, she said.
“We now have an opportunity to prevent unnecessary ANA testing, Dr. Yeo said. “Ultimately, our aim is to change behavior at the start of the ordering cycle by educating medical students and doctors about inappropriate test ordering.”
The majority of repeated tests had been ordered by nonrheumatologists (82% of cases), and Dr. Yeo said that rheumatologists ordered repeat tests in 11% of cases. However, there was little information available in this retrospective analysis as to why the tests had been repeated.
The research was picked as one of the six best clinical abstracts at the meeting, out of a total of almost 5,000 submitted abstracts.
Dr. Yeo reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Yeo AL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):76-7, Abstract OP0020. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4517.
MADRID – Repeated antinuclear antibody testing after a negative result has limited use for the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatologic conditions, according to data from a multicenter, retrospective analysis that considered a 7-year period.
Considering more than 7,875 repeated ANA tests in 4,887 patients, “the vast majority of results didn’t change,” Ai Li Yeo, MBBS, a PhD candidate, rheumatologist, and infectious disease fellow at Monash University, Melbourne, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
ANA tests were repeated between 2 and as many as 45 times in individual patients, she reported, but the results of 79% of these tests remained unchanged – 45% of tests were persistently negative and 34% persistently positive using a cutoff titer of 1:160.
“Our study showed that there was a very low yield in repeating an ANA test for the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatological conditions unless there was evidence of evolving multisystem clinical features,” Dr. Yeo said.
Indeed, the positive predictive value was just 0.01. “So for a hundred patients staring off with a negative ANA results that on repeat testing became positive, the probability is that one patient will have a new ANA-associated rheumatological condition diagnosis,” Dr. Yeo said.
“ANA testing is frequently performed and is part of the classification criteria for autoimmune conditions such as lupus and scleroderma,” she observed. However, the test provides no information on the severity or activity of the disease, and the value of serial monitoring for such conditions is unclear.
“Minimizing unnecessary tests is a global health economic priority,” Dr. Yeo said. She noted that there are multiple initiatives in place to try to open a dialog about using health care resources most effectively, such as ‘Choosing Wisely’ set up by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation.
The aim of the present analysis was to calculate the cost of repeated ANA testing and to see if any change in the ANA result was associated with new diagnoses of ANA-associated rheumatological conditions.
The analysis considered more than 36,700 tests that were performed on samples from more than 28,800 patients within the Monash Health tertiary health network between 2011 and 2018. Of these, 22,657 (62%) had given a negative result and 14,058 (38%) had given a positive result.
“Not surprisingly, the age of those who tested positive was significantly higher than those who tested negative,” Dr. Yeo said (52.6 vs. 48.9 years; P less than .001). There was also a higher number of women than men tested, and women more often tested positive.
Around one-fifth of tests performed were repeat tests, of which 511 (6.5%) changed from being negative to positive over a median of 1.71 years.
“A small percentage of people alternated between results,” Dr. Yeo acknowledged, with 9.4% of people going from a positive to a negative result; 10.5% moving from a negative to a positive result, and 1.9% going from positive to negative to positive.
With repeated tests, just five new diagnoses of ANA-associated rheumatologic conditions were made: two cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), one case of scleroderma, and two cases of undifferentiated connective tissue disease. There was a range of ANA titers and patterns and evolving clinical features of a multisystem disease.
Based on the direct costs of ANA testing in her health care system, not performing repeated tests could yield significant savings, Dr. Yeo said, a 21.4% reduction, in fact, based on this analysis. The cost of an ANA test in Australia ranges from 15 to 46 euros, making the cost of all tests in this analysis 564,745 euros. Taking away the cost of all the single ANA tests performed (443,209 euros) gives a potential cost saving of more than 121,000 euros, she said.
“We now have an opportunity to prevent unnecessary ANA testing, Dr. Yeo said. “Ultimately, our aim is to change behavior at the start of the ordering cycle by educating medical students and doctors about inappropriate test ordering.”
The majority of repeated tests had been ordered by nonrheumatologists (82% of cases), and Dr. Yeo said that rheumatologists ordered repeat tests in 11% of cases. However, there was little information available in this retrospective analysis as to why the tests had been repeated.
The research was picked as one of the six best clinical abstracts at the meeting, out of a total of almost 5,000 submitted abstracts.
Dr. Yeo reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Yeo AL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):76-7, Abstract OP0020. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4517.
MADRID – Repeated antinuclear antibody testing after a negative result has limited use for the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatologic conditions, according to data from a multicenter, retrospective analysis that considered a 7-year period.
Considering more than 7,875 repeated ANA tests in 4,887 patients, “the vast majority of results didn’t change,” Ai Li Yeo, MBBS, a PhD candidate, rheumatologist, and infectious disease fellow at Monash University, Melbourne, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
ANA tests were repeated between 2 and as many as 45 times in individual patients, she reported, but the results of 79% of these tests remained unchanged – 45% of tests were persistently negative and 34% persistently positive using a cutoff titer of 1:160.
“Our study showed that there was a very low yield in repeating an ANA test for the diagnosis of ANA-associated rheumatological conditions unless there was evidence of evolving multisystem clinical features,” Dr. Yeo said.
Indeed, the positive predictive value was just 0.01. “So for a hundred patients staring off with a negative ANA results that on repeat testing became positive, the probability is that one patient will have a new ANA-associated rheumatological condition diagnosis,” Dr. Yeo said.
“ANA testing is frequently performed and is part of the classification criteria for autoimmune conditions such as lupus and scleroderma,” she observed. However, the test provides no information on the severity or activity of the disease, and the value of serial monitoring for such conditions is unclear.
“Minimizing unnecessary tests is a global health economic priority,” Dr. Yeo said. She noted that there are multiple initiatives in place to try to open a dialog about using health care resources most effectively, such as ‘Choosing Wisely’ set up by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation.
The aim of the present analysis was to calculate the cost of repeated ANA testing and to see if any change in the ANA result was associated with new diagnoses of ANA-associated rheumatological conditions.
The analysis considered more than 36,700 tests that were performed on samples from more than 28,800 patients within the Monash Health tertiary health network between 2011 and 2018. Of these, 22,657 (62%) had given a negative result and 14,058 (38%) had given a positive result.
“Not surprisingly, the age of those who tested positive was significantly higher than those who tested negative,” Dr. Yeo said (52.6 vs. 48.9 years; P less than .001). There was also a higher number of women than men tested, and women more often tested positive.
Around one-fifth of tests performed were repeat tests, of which 511 (6.5%) changed from being negative to positive over a median of 1.71 years.
“A small percentage of people alternated between results,” Dr. Yeo acknowledged, with 9.4% of people going from a positive to a negative result; 10.5% moving from a negative to a positive result, and 1.9% going from positive to negative to positive.
With repeated tests, just five new diagnoses of ANA-associated rheumatologic conditions were made: two cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), one case of scleroderma, and two cases of undifferentiated connective tissue disease. There was a range of ANA titers and patterns and evolving clinical features of a multisystem disease.
Based on the direct costs of ANA testing in her health care system, not performing repeated tests could yield significant savings, Dr. Yeo said, a 21.4% reduction, in fact, based on this analysis. The cost of an ANA test in Australia ranges from 15 to 46 euros, making the cost of all tests in this analysis 564,745 euros. Taking away the cost of all the single ANA tests performed (443,209 euros) gives a potential cost saving of more than 121,000 euros, she said.
“We now have an opportunity to prevent unnecessary ANA testing, Dr. Yeo said. “Ultimately, our aim is to change behavior at the start of the ordering cycle by educating medical students and doctors about inappropriate test ordering.”
The majority of repeated tests had been ordered by nonrheumatologists (82% of cases), and Dr. Yeo said that rheumatologists ordered repeat tests in 11% of cases. However, there was little information available in this retrospective analysis as to why the tests had been repeated.
The research was picked as one of the six best clinical abstracts at the meeting, out of a total of almost 5,000 submitted abstracts.
Dr. Yeo reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Yeo AL et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(suppl 2):76-7, Abstract OP0020. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.4517.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
RNase drug shows promise for Sjögren’s fatigue
MADRID – RSLV-132, a novel drug that eliminates circulating nucleic acids, improved the symptoms of mental fatigue in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled “proof-of-concept” study.
The mental component of fatigue on the Profile of Fatigue (PRO-F) scale improved by 1.53 points among the patients given RSLV-132, while there was a worsening of 0.06 points in the placebo group (P = .046). Scores range from 0 to 7 on the PRO-F.
There were also improvements in some patient-reported outcomes, namely the EULAR pSS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and improvement of neuropsychological measures of cognitive function, but none were statistically significant. All of these outcomes, including fatigue, were secondary outcomes of the study.
“Fatigue is a major issue for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome,” Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, fatigue can be disabling in the majority of individuals, he added.
Currently, the best way to manage fatigue is to first ask about it, said Dr. Ng, who is professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then checks for any underlying problem that could be better managed – sleep problems or anemia, for example – and optimizes treatment for any underlying disease. “I think many people would at least feel satisfied that people take the symptoms seriously.”
Dr. Ng and his coauthors investigated the effects of RSLV-132, a first-in-class human RNase fused to the human Fc domain of human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1, in the RESOLVE 132-04 study. This novel drug been designed to increase serum RNase activity to digest RNA-associated immune complexes, Dr. Ng and associates observed in their abstract. As a consequence of this, they say, activation of toll-like receptors and the production of interferon (IFN) is affected, as is B-cell proliferation and the production of autoantibodies – all mechanisms that are “key to pSS pathogenesis.”
The IFN pathway has been implicated in fatigue, Dr. Ng observed when he presented the RESOLVE 132-04 study’s findings, which involved 30 patients with pSS who had been treated for 3 months. Inclusion criteria were pSS as defined by the American-European Consensus Group 2002 criteria, anti-Ro antibody positivity, and increased expression of three IFN-regulated genes: HERC5, EPSTI1, and CMPK2. Exclusion criteria were the use of hydroxychloroquine, prednisolone at daily doses above 10 mg, and the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg/kg of RSLV-132 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 8) at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then every fortnight until week 12. Dr. Ng noted that although 30 patients were randomized, two patients had dropped out in the placebo group before they could be “treated.”
The primary endpoint was the change in the blood cell gene expression or serum protein levels indicative of reduced inflammation. The results indicated reductions in noncoding RNA molecules in patients who received RSLV-132 versus placebo, “consistent with the mode of action of the molecule.” In addition, “the majority of inflammatory markers were reduced,” Dr. Ng said.
Another finding showed a nonsignificant trend for improvement of 0.8 units in the physical component in the RSLV-132 group, compared against 0.06 units with placebo (P = .142).
Patients who received RSLV-132 reduced the time needed to complete the Digital Symbol Substitution Test by 16.4 s, compared with an increase of 2.8 s for placebo (P = .024).
Similar trends were observed for ESSPRI and FACIT-F scores.
These are very early data and clearly a bigger study would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn, Dr. Ng said in an interview. What these data suggest is that “maybe there is some way that we could manage fatigue, and we just need to go and explore that.”
RSLV-132 has also been studied in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus. 2017;26:825-34).
The trial was sponsored by Resolve Therapeutics. Dr. Ng was an investigator in the trial and disclosed other research collaborations with electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Source: Fisher B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(suppl 2):177, Abstract OP0202. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3098.
MADRID – RSLV-132, a novel drug that eliminates circulating nucleic acids, improved the symptoms of mental fatigue in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled “proof-of-concept” study.
The mental component of fatigue on the Profile of Fatigue (PRO-F) scale improved by 1.53 points among the patients given RSLV-132, while there was a worsening of 0.06 points in the placebo group (P = .046). Scores range from 0 to 7 on the PRO-F.
There were also improvements in some patient-reported outcomes, namely the EULAR pSS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and improvement of neuropsychological measures of cognitive function, but none were statistically significant. All of these outcomes, including fatigue, were secondary outcomes of the study.
“Fatigue is a major issue for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome,” Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, fatigue can be disabling in the majority of individuals, he added.
Currently, the best way to manage fatigue is to first ask about it, said Dr. Ng, who is professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then checks for any underlying problem that could be better managed – sleep problems or anemia, for example – and optimizes treatment for any underlying disease. “I think many people would at least feel satisfied that people take the symptoms seriously.”
Dr. Ng and his coauthors investigated the effects of RSLV-132, a first-in-class human RNase fused to the human Fc domain of human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1, in the RESOLVE 132-04 study. This novel drug been designed to increase serum RNase activity to digest RNA-associated immune complexes, Dr. Ng and associates observed in their abstract. As a consequence of this, they say, activation of toll-like receptors and the production of interferon (IFN) is affected, as is B-cell proliferation and the production of autoantibodies – all mechanisms that are “key to pSS pathogenesis.”
The IFN pathway has been implicated in fatigue, Dr. Ng observed when he presented the RESOLVE 132-04 study’s findings, which involved 30 patients with pSS who had been treated for 3 months. Inclusion criteria were pSS as defined by the American-European Consensus Group 2002 criteria, anti-Ro antibody positivity, and increased expression of three IFN-regulated genes: HERC5, EPSTI1, and CMPK2. Exclusion criteria were the use of hydroxychloroquine, prednisolone at daily doses above 10 mg, and the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg/kg of RSLV-132 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 8) at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then every fortnight until week 12. Dr. Ng noted that although 30 patients were randomized, two patients had dropped out in the placebo group before they could be “treated.”
The primary endpoint was the change in the blood cell gene expression or serum protein levels indicative of reduced inflammation. The results indicated reductions in noncoding RNA molecules in patients who received RSLV-132 versus placebo, “consistent with the mode of action of the molecule.” In addition, “the majority of inflammatory markers were reduced,” Dr. Ng said.
Another finding showed a nonsignificant trend for improvement of 0.8 units in the physical component in the RSLV-132 group, compared against 0.06 units with placebo (P = .142).
Patients who received RSLV-132 reduced the time needed to complete the Digital Symbol Substitution Test by 16.4 s, compared with an increase of 2.8 s for placebo (P = .024).
Similar trends were observed for ESSPRI and FACIT-F scores.
These are very early data and clearly a bigger study would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn, Dr. Ng said in an interview. What these data suggest is that “maybe there is some way that we could manage fatigue, and we just need to go and explore that.”
RSLV-132 has also been studied in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus. 2017;26:825-34).
The trial was sponsored by Resolve Therapeutics. Dr. Ng was an investigator in the trial and disclosed other research collaborations with electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Source: Fisher B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(suppl 2):177, Abstract OP0202. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3098.
MADRID – RSLV-132, a novel drug that eliminates circulating nucleic acids, improved the symptoms of mental fatigue in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled “proof-of-concept” study.
The mental component of fatigue on the Profile of Fatigue (PRO-F) scale improved by 1.53 points among the patients given RSLV-132, while there was a worsening of 0.06 points in the placebo group (P = .046). Scores range from 0 to 7 on the PRO-F.
There were also improvements in some patient-reported outcomes, namely the EULAR pSS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and improvement of neuropsychological measures of cognitive function, but none were statistically significant. All of these outcomes, including fatigue, were secondary outcomes of the study.
“Fatigue is a major issue for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome,” Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, fatigue can be disabling in the majority of individuals, he added.
Currently, the best way to manage fatigue is to first ask about it, said Dr. Ng, who is professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then checks for any underlying problem that could be better managed – sleep problems or anemia, for example – and optimizes treatment for any underlying disease. “I think many people would at least feel satisfied that people take the symptoms seriously.”
Dr. Ng and his coauthors investigated the effects of RSLV-132, a first-in-class human RNase fused to the human Fc domain of human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1, in the RESOLVE 132-04 study. This novel drug been designed to increase serum RNase activity to digest RNA-associated immune complexes, Dr. Ng and associates observed in their abstract. As a consequence of this, they say, activation of toll-like receptors and the production of interferon (IFN) is affected, as is B-cell proliferation and the production of autoantibodies – all mechanisms that are “key to pSS pathogenesis.”
The IFN pathway has been implicated in fatigue, Dr. Ng observed when he presented the RESOLVE 132-04 study’s findings, which involved 30 patients with pSS who had been treated for 3 months. Inclusion criteria were pSS as defined by the American-European Consensus Group 2002 criteria, anti-Ro antibody positivity, and increased expression of three IFN-regulated genes: HERC5, EPSTI1, and CMPK2. Exclusion criteria were the use of hydroxychloroquine, prednisolone at daily doses above 10 mg, and the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg/kg of RSLV-132 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 8) at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then every fortnight until week 12. Dr. Ng noted that although 30 patients were randomized, two patients had dropped out in the placebo group before they could be “treated.”
The primary endpoint was the change in the blood cell gene expression or serum protein levels indicative of reduced inflammation. The results indicated reductions in noncoding RNA molecules in patients who received RSLV-132 versus placebo, “consistent with the mode of action of the molecule.” In addition, “the majority of inflammatory markers were reduced,” Dr. Ng said.
Another finding showed a nonsignificant trend for improvement of 0.8 units in the physical component in the RSLV-132 group, compared against 0.06 units with placebo (P = .142).
Patients who received RSLV-132 reduced the time needed to complete the Digital Symbol Substitution Test by 16.4 s, compared with an increase of 2.8 s for placebo (P = .024).
Similar trends were observed for ESSPRI and FACIT-F scores.
These are very early data and clearly a bigger study would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn, Dr. Ng said in an interview. What these data suggest is that “maybe there is some way that we could manage fatigue, and we just need to go and explore that.”
RSLV-132 has also been studied in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus. 2017;26:825-34).
The trial was sponsored by Resolve Therapeutics. Dr. Ng was an investigator in the trial and disclosed other research collaborations with electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Source: Fisher B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(suppl 2):177, Abstract OP0202. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3098.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Flu vaccine succeeds in TNF inhibitor users
MADRID – Influenza vaccination is similarly effective for individuals taking a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and healthy controls, but the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of influenza for patients taking a TNF inhibitor is much lower, according to data from a study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one case of influenza among healthy control patients was 71, compared with an NNV of 10 for patients taking the TNF inhibitor adalimumab (Humira), reported Giovanni Adami, MD, and colleagues at the University of Verona (Italy).
While TNF inhibitors “are known to increase the risk of infection by suppressing the activity of the immune system,” it has not been clear whether the response to vaccination is impaired in patients treated with a TNF inhibitor, Dr. Adami said.
Dr. Adami and colleagues reviewed data from 15,132 adult patients exposed to adalimumab in global rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials and 71,221 healthy controls from clinical trials of influenza vaccines. Overall, the rate of influenza infection was similarly reduced with vaccination in both groups. The rate in healthy individuals went from 2.3% for those unvaccinated to 0.9% for those vaccinated; for TNF inhibitor–treated patients, the rate was 14.4% for those unvaccinated versus 4.5% for those vaccinated.
“It is not surprising that the number needed to vaccinate is dramatically lower in patients treated with immunosuppressors, compared to healthy individuals,” Dr. Adami noted. “As a matter of fact, patients treated with such drugs are at higher risk of infections, namely they have a greater absolute risk of influenza. Nevertheless, [it] is quite surprising that the relative risk reduction is similar between TNF inhibitor–treated patients and healthy controls, meaning that the vaccination is efficacious in both the cohorts.”
The researchers also calculated the cost to prevent one case of influenza, using a cost of approximately 16.5 euro per vaccine. (Dr. Adami also cited an average U.S. cost of about $40/vaccine). Using this method, they estimated a cost for vaccination of 1,174 euro (roughly $1,340) to prevent one influenza infection in the general population, and a cost of about 165 euro (roughly $188) to vaccinate enough people treated with a TNF inhibitor to prevent one infection.
Dr. Adami advised clinicians to remember the low NNV for TNF inhibitor–treated patients with regard to influenza vaccination. “A direct disclosure of the NNV for these patients might help adherence to vaccinations,” he said.
Next steps for research should include extending the real-world effectiveness analysis to other medications and other diseases, such as zoster vaccination in patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors, Dr. Adami said.
Dr. Adami had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Abiogen Pharma, Grünenthal, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Mundipharma, and Pfizer.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Adami G et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):192-3. Abstract OP0230, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3088
MADRID – Influenza vaccination is similarly effective for individuals taking a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and healthy controls, but the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of influenza for patients taking a TNF inhibitor is much lower, according to data from a study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one case of influenza among healthy control patients was 71, compared with an NNV of 10 for patients taking the TNF inhibitor adalimumab (Humira), reported Giovanni Adami, MD, and colleagues at the University of Verona (Italy).
While TNF inhibitors “are known to increase the risk of infection by suppressing the activity of the immune system,” it has not been clear whether the response to vaccination is impaired in patients treated with a TNF inhibitor, Dr. Adami said.
Dr. Adami and colleagues reviewed data from 15,132 adult patients exposed to adalimumab in global rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials and 71,221 healthy controls from clinical trials of influenza vaccines. Overall, the rate of influenza infection was similarly reduced with vaccination in both groups. The rate in healthy individuals went from 2.3% for those unvaccinated to 0.9% for those vaccinated; for TNF inhibitor–treated patients, the rate was 14.4% for those unvaccinated versus 4.5% for those vaccinated.
“It is not surprising that the number needed to vaccinate is dramatically lower in patients treated with immunosuppressors, compared to healthy individuals,” Dr. Adami noted. “As a matter of fact, patients treated with such drugs are at higher risk of infections, namely they have a greater absolute risk of influenza. Nevertheless, [it] is quite surprising that the relative risk reduction is similar between TNF inhibitor–treated patients and healthy controls, meaning that the vaccination is efficacious in both the cohorts.”
The researchers also calculated the cost to prevent one case of influenza, using a cost of approximately 16.5 euro per vaccine. (Dr. Adami also cited an average U.S. cost of about $40/vaccine). Using this method, they estimated a cost for vaccination of 1,174 euro (roughly $1,340) to prevent one influenza infection in the general population, and a cost of about 165 euro (roughly $188) to vaccinate enough people treated with a TNF inhibitor to prevent one infection.
Dr. Adami advised clinicians to remember the low NNV for TNF inhibitor–treated patients with regard to influenza vaccination. “A direct disclosure of the NNV for these patients might help adherence to vaccinations,” he said.
Next steps for research should include extending the real-world effectiveness analysis to other medications and other diseases, such as zoster vaccination in patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors, Dr. Adami said.
Dr. Adami had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Abiogen Pharma, Grünenthal, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Mundipharma, and Pfizer.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Adami G et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):192-3. Abstract OP0230, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3088
MADRID – Influenza vaccination is similarly effective for individuals taking a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and healthy controls, but the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of influenza for patients taking a TNF inhibitor is much lower, according to data from a study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one case of influenza among healthy control patients was 71, compared with an NNV of 10 for patients taking the TNF inhibitor adalimumab (Humira), reported Giovanni Adami, MD, and colleagues at the University of Verona (Italy).
While TNF inhibitors “are known to increase the risk of infection by suppressing the activity of the immune system,” it has not been clear whether the response to vaccination is impaired in patients treated with a TNF inhibitor, Dr. Adami said.
Dr. Adami and colleagues reviewed data from 15,132 adult patients exposed to adalimumab in global rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials and 71,221 healthy controls from clinical trials of influenza vaccines. Overall, the rate of influenza infection was similarly reduced with vaccination in both groups. The rate in healthy individuals went from 2.3% for those unvaccinated to 0.9% for those vaccinated; for TNF inhibitor–treated patients, the rate was 14.4% for those unvaccinated versus 4.5% for those vaccinated.
“It is not surprising that the number needed to vaccinate is dramatically lower in patients treated with immunosuppressors, compared to healthy individuals,” Dr. Adami noted. “As a matter of fact, patients treated with such drugs are at higher risk of infections, namely they have a greater absolute risk of influenza. Nevertheless, [it] is quite surprising that the relative risk reduction is similar between TNF inhibitor–treated patients and healthy controls, meaning that the vaccination is efficacious in both the cohorts.”
The researchers also calculated the cost to prevent one case of influenza, using a cost of approximately 16.5 euro per vaccine. (Dr. Adami also cited an average U.S. cost of about $40/vaccine). Using this method, they estimated a cost for vaccination of 1,174 euro (roughly $1,340) to prevent one influenza infection in the general population, and a cost of about 165 euro (roughly $188) to vaccinate enough people treated with a TNF inhibitor to prevent one infection.
Dr. Adami advised clinicians to remember the low NNV for TNF inhibitor–treated patients with regard to influenza vaccination. “A direct disclosure of the NNV for these patients might help adherence to vaccinations,” he said.
Next steps for research should include extending the real-world effectiveness analysis to other medications and other diseases, such as zoster vaccination in patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors, Dr. Adami said.
Dr. Adami had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Abiogen Pharma, Grünenthal, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Mundipharma, and Pfizer.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Adami G et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):192-3. Abstract OP0230, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3088
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Unacceptable pain despite inflammation control commonly occurs in PsA patients
MADRID – A considerable number of patients with psoriatic arthritis starting their first biologic treatment report unacceptable pain throughout the first year of treatment, even when their inflammation is controlled, according to Swedish researchers.
“Despite this often efficient therapy, 40% of patients still had unacceptable pain after 1 year, and pain with features indicative of a noninflammatory mechanism accounted for more than 60% of this pain load,” senior study author Tor Olofsson, MD, a rheumatologist and doctoral student at Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview in advance of his presentation at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Within rheumatology, today we are generally very good at treating inflammation in many of the arthritides, but we have a lot of patients with persistent pain despite being well treated for their inflammation,” Dr. Olofsson said. “In psoriatic arthritis patients, this remaining pain seems to be even more frequent than in rheumatoid arthritis with the capturing instruments we use here.”
Dr. Olofsson and his colleagues studied prospectively collected records from 352 psoriatic arthritis patients (48% women) participating in the South Swedish Arthritis Group register who started a first anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy during 2004-2010. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and a mean disease duration of 10 years. At the start of anti-TNF therapy, 63% of patients were taking methotrexate, and 68% were taking any conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Based on the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, unacceptable pain was defined as greater than 40 mm on a 0-100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Inflammation control was captured through C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L in combination with one or no swollen joints. Assessments were performed at baseline, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months after the start of the first anti-TNF agent. Analyses were also conducted in relation to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)–defined treatment response after 3 months (good, moderate, or no response).
At the start of anti-TNF therapy, 85% of patients reported unacceptable pain, which declined to 43% after 3 months and then remained stable, reaching 39% at 12 months. The fraction of patients who had unacceptable pain despite inflammation control was largely unchanged over the study period (24% at treatment start, 27% at 3 months, and 26% at 12 months). Unacceptable pain at 3 months was strongly related to EULAR 3-month response (24% of good responders vs. 79% of nonresponders; P less than .001). This relationship was less pronounced among patients with unacceptable pain despite inflammation control (19% of good responders vs. 37% of nonresponders; P = .016). Among EULAR good responders, unacceptable pain despite inflammation control constituted 81% of all unacceptable pain at 3 months.
Dr. Olofsson said he was surprised by the high levels of pain despite inflammation control reported by these patients. A similar study he and others conducted in rheumatoid arthritis patients a year ago, soon to be published, found that only 12% had unacceptable pain despite inflammation control 1 year after start of a first anti-TNF agent, “so captured by the same instruments, it looks like this problem might be even bigger among patients with psoriatic arthritis.”
There is a possibility that psoriatic arthritis patients may have ongoing pain from low-grade inflammation, he said, but another hypothesis is that many psoriatic arthritis patients develop a more generalized pain condition in line with fibromyalgia. It could be that, if inflammation isn’t treated quickly enough in the beginning of the disease, it could sensitize the central pain system, he said, and it may not be reversible after it has developed.
Alternative treatment strategies are often needed in affected patients, Dr. Olofsson added. This could include regular painkillers or medicines used for more generalized, noninflammatory pain states, such as amitriptyline or duloxetine, as well as nonpharmacologic treatment options.
“The bottom line here is that, if patients are treated aggressively early enough, we might be able to prevent development of this sensitization process,” Dr. Olofsson said. “If we can also do predictive studies to describe which patients have a higher risk of developing this, then maybe we can be even more focused in the initial management before they become centrally sensitized.”
Dr. Olofsson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two of his coauthors reported relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Novartis, UCB, and Sandoz.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Roseman C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(Suppl 2):129-30. Abstract OP0112, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1839.
MADRID – A considerable number of patients with psoriatic arthritis starting their first biologic treatment report unacceptable pain throughout the first year of treatment, even when their inflammation is controlled, according to Swedish researchers.
“Despite this often efficient therapy, 40% of patients still had unacceptable pain after 1 year, and pain with features indicative of a noninflammatory mechanism accounted for more than 60% of this pain load,” senior study author Tor Olofsson, MD, a rheumatologist and doctoral student at Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview in advance of his presentation at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Within rheumatology, today we are generally very good at treating inflammation in many of the arthritides, but we have a lot of patients with persistent pain despite being well treated for their inflammation,” Dr. Olofsson said. “In psoriatic arthritis patients, this remaining pain seems to be even more frequent than in rheumatoid arthritis with the capturing instruments we use here.”
Dr. Olofsson and his colleagues studied prospectively collected records from 352 psoriatic arthritis patients (48% women) participating in the South Swedish Arthritis Group register who started a first anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy during 2004-2010. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and a mean disease duration of 10 years. At the start of anti-TNF therapy, 63% of patients were taking methotrexate, and 68% were taking any conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Based on the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, unacceptable pain was defined as greater than 40 mm on a 0-100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Inflammation control was captured through C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L in combination with one or no swollen joints. Assessments were performed at baseline, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months after the start of the first anti-TNF agent. Analyses were also conducted in relation to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)–defined treatment response after 3 months (good, moderate, or no response).
At the start of anti-TNF therapy, 85% of patients reported unacceptable pain, which declined to 43% after 3 months and then remained stable, reaching 39% at 12 months. The fraction of patients who had unacceptable pain despite inflammation control was largely unchanged over the study period (24% at treatment start, 27% at 3 months, and 26% at 12 months). Unacceptable pain at 3 months was strongly related to EULAR 3-month response (24% of good responders vs. 79% of nonresponders; P less than .001). This relationship was less pronounced among patients with unacceptable pain despite inflammation control (19% of good responders vs. 37% of nonresponders; P = .016). Among EULAR good responders, unacceptable pain despite inflammation control constituted 81% of all unacceptable pain at 3 months.
Dr. Olofsson said he was surprised by the high levels of pain despite inflammation control reported by these patients. A similar study he and others conducted in rheumatoid arthritis patients a year ago, soon to be published, found that only 12% had unacceptable pain despite inflammation control 1 year after start of a first anti-TNF agent, “so captured by the same instruments, it looks like this problem might be even bigger among patients with psoriatic arthritis.”
There is a possibility that psoriatic arthritis patients may have ongoing pain from low-grade inflammation, he said, but another hypothesis is that many psoriatic arthritis patients develop a more generalized pain condition in line with fibromyalgia. It could be that, if inflammation isn’t treated quickly enough in the beginning of the disease, it could sensitize the central pain system, he said, and it may not be reversible after it has developed.
Alternative treatment strategies are often needed in affected patients, Dr. Olofsson added. This could include regular painkillers or medicines used for more generalized, noninflammatory pain states, such as amitriptyline or duloxetine, as well as nonpharmacologic treatment options.
“The bottom line here is that, if patients are treated aggressively early enough, we might be able to prevent development of this sensitization process,” Dr. Olofsson said. “If we can also do predictive studies to describe which patients have a higher risk of developing this, then maybe we can be even more focused in the initial management before they become centrally sensitized.”
Dr. Olofsson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two of his coauthors reported relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Novartis, UCB, and Sandoz.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Roseman C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(Suppl 2):129-30. Abstract OP0112, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1839.
MADRID – A considerable number of patients with psoriatic arthritis starting their first biologic treatment report unacceptable pain throughout the first year of treatment, even when their inflammation is controlled, according to Swedish researchers.
“Despite this often efficient therapy, 40% of patients still had unacceptable pain after 1 year, and pain with features indicative of a noninflammatory mechanism accounted for more than 60% of this pain load,” senior study author Tor Olofsson, MD, a rheumatologist and doctoral student at Lund (Sweden) University, said in an interview in advance of his presentation at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Within rheumatology, today we are generally very good at treating inflammation in many of the arthritides, but we have a lot of patients with persistent pain despite being well treated for their inflammation,” Dr. Olofsson said. “In psoriatic arthritis patients, this remaining pain seems to be even more frequent than in rheumatoid arthritis with the capturing instruments we use here.”
Dr. Olofsson and his colleagues studied prospectively collected records from 352 psoriatic arthritis patients (48% women) participating in the South Swedish Arthritis Group register who started a first anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy during 2004-2010. Participants had a mean age of 47 years and a mean disease duration of 10 years. At the start of anti-TNF therapy, 63% of patients were taking methotrexate, and 68% were taking any conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Based on the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, unacceptable pain was defined as greater than 40 mm on a 0-100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Inflammation control was captured through C-reactive protein level less than 10 mg/L in combination with one or no swollen joints. Assessments were performed at baseline, 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 months after the start of the first anti-TNF agent. Analyses were also conducted in relation to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)–defined treatment response after 3 months (good, moderate, or no response).
At the start of anti-TNF therapy, 85% of patients reported unacceptable pain, which declined to 43% after 3 months and then remained stable, reaching 39% at 12 months. The fraction of patients who had unacceptable pain despite inflammation control was largely unchanged over the study period (24% at treatment start, 27% at 3 months, and 26% at 12 months). Unacceptable pain at 3 months was strongly related to EULAR 3-month response (24% of good responders vs. 79% of nonresponders; P less than .001). This relationship was less pronounced among patients with unacceptable pain despite inflammation control (19% of good responders vs. 37% of nonresponders; P = .016). Among EULAR good responders, unacceptable pain despite inflammation control constituted 81% of all unacceptable pain at 3 months.
Dr. Olofsson said he was surprised by the high levels of pain despite inflammation control reported by these patients. A similar study he and others conducted in rheumatoid arthritis patients a year ago, soon to be published, found that only 12% had unacceptable pain despite inflammation control 1 year after start of a first anti-TNF agent, “so captured by the same instruments, it looks like this problem might be even bigger among patients with psoriatic arthritis.”
There is a possibility that psoriatic arthritis patients may have ongoing pain from low-grade inflammation, he said, but another hypothesis is that many psoriatic arthritis patients develop a more generalized pain condition in line with fibromyalgia. It could be that, if inflammation isn’t treated quickly enough in the beginning of the disease, it could sensitize the central pain system, he said, and it may not be reversible after it has developed.
Alternative treatment strategies are often needed in affected patients, Dr. Olofsson added. This could include regular painkillers or medicines used for more generalized, noninflammatory pain states, such as amitriptyline or duloxetine, as well as nonpharmacologic treatment options.
“The bottom line here is that, if patients are treated aggressively early enough, we might be able to prevent development of this sensitization process,” Dr. Olofsson said. “If we can also do predictive studies to describe which patients have a higher risk of developing this, then maybe we can be even more focused in the initial management before they become centrally sensitized.”
Dr. Olofsson had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two of his coauthors reported relationships with AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Novartis, UCB, and Sandoz.
Mitchel L. Zoler contributed to this report.
SOURCE: Roseman C et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(Suppl 2):129-30. Abstract OP0112, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1839.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
EULAR keeps csDMARDs as top PsA drugs
MADRID – The draft revision of the European League Against Rheumatism’s recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis sticks with the group’s already-existing conviction that psoriatic arthritis treatment best starts with an NSAID, and if that fails follow with a conventional synthetic antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate, a position in stark contrast with the 2018 recommendation from the American College of Rheumatology to first treat with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.
For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) manifesting with polyarthritis, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) “should be first,” and should “start rapidly” if brief, initial treatment with an NSAID proves inadequate, Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, said while presenting a draft version of an update to the PsA management recommendations from EULAR at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The EULAR recommendations-revision panel had about the same advice for managing PsA patients with oligoarthritis, monoarthritis, or peripheral arthritis. For oligo- and monoarthritis, “consider a csDMARD after failing NSAIDS, but also consider the patient’s prognostic factors,” like structural damage, and dactylitis. For PsA patients with peripheral arthritis, “it still makes sense to keep csDMARDs as the first line treatment,” said Dr. Gossec, professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris. Once published, the revision will replace existing EULAR recommendations from 2015 (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Mar;75[3]:499-510).
The list of csDMARDs she cited included not just methotrexate, still the top csDMARD, but also sulfasalazine and leflunomide as alternatives, she noted, with methotrexate also the preferred csDMARD for patients with skin involvement. When a PsA patient fails at least one csDMARD, then switching to a biologic DMARD is recommended. For a patient with skin involvement, a drug that targets interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 is preferred. If skin involvement is not a major issue, then treatment with a TNF inhibitor is equally valid, she said.
The 2018 PsA management guideline from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) proposed a strikingly different sequence, endorsing initial treatment with a TNF inhibitor first over all other options, including methotrexate and other “oral small molecules” (the ACR term for csDMARD), and also including NSAIDs (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).
This schism between EULAR and the ACR could be seen as predictable, given the different constraints the two societies have set for themselves.
“EULAR recommendations take into account drug costs; the ACR guideline is supposed to be agnostic to costs,” explained Philip J. Mease, MD, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle and a member of the ACR panel that wrote the 2018 PsA guideline.
In fact it was a study Dr. Mease recently led and reported results from that provided the most recent and perhaps best assessment of a TNF inhibitor, compared with methotrexate, as initial treatment for PsA, with findings that suggest that, although the advice from the two societies may sharply differ, the viewpoints of both groups are evidence based.
The SEAM-PsA (Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) trial randomized 851 PsA patients receiving their first treatment to methotrexate only, the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) only, or both drugs. The study’s two coprimary outcomes, the ACR 20 and minimal disease activity responses after 24 weeks, showed that etanercept monotherapy produced these responses in 61% and 36% of patients, respectively, while methotrexate monotherapy produced response rates of 51% and 23%, respectively. Both these differences between etanercept monotherapy and methotrexate monotherapy were statistically significant. Combining methotrexate with etanercept did not produce a significant improvement over etanercept alone.
Interpreting the meaning of this finding for clinical practice “depends on the lens you look through,” Dr. Mease said in an interview. “A lot of patients respond to methotrexate, which is good when treatment resources are challenged. But when there is no resource challenge, the data support going straight to a TNF inhibitor.”
Dr. Gossec confirmed the importance of the SEAM-PsA findings in the writing panel’s decision during discussion of the draft, replying to a question about consideration of the study’s findings. “We carefully looked at the SEAM-PsA trial results, which provide some of the only data we have on methotrexate” for PsA. “We felt that the results were in favor of methotrexate’s efficacy, and therefore did not go against our proposal to keep a graduated approach starting with a csDMARD.”
Patients who fail to receive adequate relief from a csDMARD could then try a biologic DMARD – a TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or IL-12/23 inhibitor, Dr. Gossec said. When skin involvement is minimal, any of these options are possible, she said. If skin involvement is significant, the panel recommended preferentially using an IL-17 or IL-12/23 inhibitor based on head-to-head trials in patients with psoriasis, she said.
When a biologic DMARD is not appropriate or fails, another option is to then try a targeted synthetic DMARD, such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. When none of these options are appropriate, or they all fail, another option for patients with mild oligo- or monoarthritis or in patients with limited skin involvement is apremilast (Otezla), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor. The draft recommendations also advise clinicians to be sure to distinguish fibromyalgia pain from enthesitis involvement, and they introduce the possibility of, with “great caution,” tapering down DMARD treatment in PsA patients who show sustained remission.
Dr. Gossec and Dr. Mease have both been consultants to and received honoraria from several companies. SEAM-PsA was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets Enbrel.
MADRID – The draft revision of the European League Against Rheumatism’s recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis sticks with the group’s already-existing conviction that psoriatic arthritis treatment best starts with an NSAID, and if that fails follow with a conventional synthetic antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate, a position in stark contrast with the 2018 recommendation from the American College of Rheumatology to first treat with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.
For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) manifesting with polyarthritis, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) “should be first,” and should “start rapidly” if brief, initial treatment with an NSAID proves inadequate, Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, said while presenting a draft version of an update to the PsA management recommendations from EULAR at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The EULAR recommendations-revision panel had about the same advice for managing PsA patients with oligoarthritis, monoarthritis, or peripheral arthritis. For oligo- and monoarthritis, “consider a csDMARD after failing NSAIDS, but also consider the patient’s prognostic factors,” like structural damage, and dactylitis. For PsA patients with peripheral arthritis, “it still makes sense to keep csDMARDs as the first line treatment,” said Dr. Gossec, professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris. Once published, the revision will replace existing EULAR recommendations from 2015 (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Mar;75[3]:499-510).
The list of csDMARDs she cited included not just methotrexate, still the top csDMARD, but also sulfasalazine and leflunomide as alternatives, she noted, with methotrexate also the preferred csDMARD for patients with skin involvement. When a PsA patient fails at least one csDMARD, then switching to a biologic DMARD is recommended. For a patient with skin involvement, a drug that targets interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 is preferred. If skin involvement is not a major issue, then treatment with a TNF inhibitor is equally valid, she said.
The 2018 PsA management guideline from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) proposed a strikingly different sequence, endorsing initial treatment with a TNF inhibitor first over all other options, including methotrexate and other “oral small molecules” (the ACR term for csDMARD), and also including NSAIDs (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).
This schism between EULAR and the ACR could be seen as predictable, given the different constraints the two societies have set for themselves.
“EULAR recommendations take into account drug costs; the ACR guideline is supposed to be agnostic to costs,” explained Philip J. Mease, MD, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle and a member of the ACR panel that wrote the 2018 PsA guideline.
In fact it was a study Dr. Mease recently led and reported results from that provided the most recent and perhaps best assessment of a TNF inhibitor, compared with methotrexate, as initial treatment for PsA, with findings that suggest that, although the advice from the two societies may sharply differ, the viewpoints of both groups are evidence based.
The SEAM-PsA (Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) trial randomized 851 PsA patients receiving their first treatment to methotrexate only, the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) only, or both drugs. The study’s two coprimary outcomes, the ACR 20 and minimal disease activity responses after 24 weeks, showed that etanercept monotherapy produced these responses in 61% and 36% of patients, respectively, while methotrexate monotherapy produced response rates of 51% and 23%, respectively. Both these differences between etanercept monotherapy and methotrexate monotherapy were statistically significant. Combining methotrexate with etanercept did not produce a significant improvement over etanercept alone.
Interpreting the meaning of this finding for clinical practice “depends on the lens you look through,” Dr. Mease said in an interview. “A lot of patients respond to methotrexate, which is good when treatment resources are challenged. But when there is no resource challenge, the data support going straight to a TNF inhibitor.”
Dr. Gossec confirmed the importance of the SEAM-PsA findings in the writing panel’s decision during discussion of the draft, replying to a question about consideration of the study’s findings. “We carefully looked at the SEAM-PsA trial results, which provide some of the only data we have on methotrexate” for PsA. “We felt that the results were in favor of methotrexate’s efficacy, and therefore did not go against our proposal to keep a graduated approach starting with a csDMARD.”
Patients who fail to receive adequate relief from a csDMARD could then try a biologic DMARD – a TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or IL-12/23 inhibitor, Dr. Gossec said. When skin involvement is minimal, any of these options are possible, she said. If skin involvement is significant, the panel recommended preferentially using an IL-17 or IL-12/23 inhibitor based on head-to-head trials in patients with psoriasis, she said.
When a biologic DMARD is not appropriate or fails, another option is to then try a targeted synthetic DMARD, such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. When none of these options are appropriate, or they all fail, another option for patients with mild oligo- or monoarthritis or in patients with limited skin involvement is apremilast (Otezla), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor. The draft recommendations also advise clinicians to be sure to distinguish fibromyalgia pain from enthesitis involvement, and they introduce the possibility of, with “great caution,” tapering down DMARD treatment in PsA patients who show sustained remission.
Dr. Gossec and Dr. Mease have both been consultants to and received honoraria from several companies. SEAM-PsA was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets Enbrel.
MADRID – The draft revision of the European League Against Rheumatism’s recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis sticks with the group’s already-existing conviction that psoriatic arthritis treatment best starts with an NSAID, and if that fails follow with a conventional synthetic antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate, a position in stark contrast with the 2018 recommendation from the American College of Rheumatology to first treat with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.
For patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) manifesting with polyarthritis, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) “should be first,” and should “start rapidly” if brief, initial treatment with an NSAID proves inadequate, Laure Gossec, MD, PhD, said while presenting a draft version of an update to the PsA management recommendations from EULAR at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The EULAR recommendations-revision panel had about the same advice for managing PsA patients with oligoarthritis, monoarthritis, or peripheral arthritis. For oligo- and monoarthritis, “consider a csDMARD after failing NSAIDS, but also consider the patient’s prognostic factors,” like structural damage, and dactylitis. For PsA patients with peripheral arthritis, “it still makes sense to keep csDMARDs as the first line treatment,” said Dr. Gossec, professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris. Once published, the revision will replace existing EULAR recommendations from 2015 (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Mar;75[3]:499-510).
The list of csDMARDs she cited included not just methotrexate, still the top csDMARD, but also sulfasalazine and leflunomide as alternatives, she noted, with methotrexate also the preferred csDMARD for patients with skin involvement. When a PsA patient fails at least one csDMARD, then switching to a biologic DMARD is recommended. For a patient with skin involvement, a drug that targets interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 is preferred. If skin involvement is not a major issue, then treatment with a TNF inhibitor is equally valid, she said.
The 2018 PsA management guideline from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) proposed a strikingly different sequence, endorsing initial treatment with a TNF inhibitor first over all other options, including methotrexate and other “oral small molecules” (the ACR term for csDMARD), and also including NSAIDs (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).
This schism between EULAR and the ACR could be seen as predictable, given the different constraints the two societies have set for themselves.
“EULAR recommendations take into account drug costs; the ACR guideline is supposed to be agnostic to costs,” explained Philip J. Mease, MD, a rheumatologist at Swedish Medical Center in Seattle and a member of the ACR panel that wrote the 2018 PsA guideline.
In fact it was a study Dr. Mease recently led and reported results from that provided the most recent and perhaps best assessment of a TNF inhibitor, compared with methotrexate, as initial treatment for PsA, with findings that suggest that, although the advice from the two societies may sharply differ, the viewpoints of both groups are evidence based.
The SEAM-PsA (Study of Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) trial randomized 851 PsA patients receiving their first treatment to methotrexate only, the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) only, or both drugs. The study’s two coprimary outcomes, the ACR 20 and minimal disease activity responses after 24 weeks, showed that etanercept monotherapy produced these responses in 61% and 36% of patients, respectively, while methotrexate monotherapy produced response rates of 51% and 23%, respectively. Both these differences between etanercept monotherapy and methotrexate monotherapy were statistically significant. Combining methotrexate with etanercept did not produce a significant improvement over etanercept alone.
Interpreting the meaning of this finding for clinical practice “depends on the lens you look through,” Dr. Mease said in an interview. “A lot of patients respond to methotrexate, which is good when treatment resources are challenged. But when there is no resource challenge, the data support going straight to a TNF inhibitor.”
Dr. Gossec confirmed the importance of the SEAM-PsA findings in the writing panel’s decision during discussion of the draft, replying to a question about consideration of the study’s findings. “We carefully looked at the SEAM-PsA trial results, which provide some of the only data we have on methotrexate” for PsA. “We felt that the results were in favor of methotrexate’s efficacy, and therefore did not go against our proposal to keep a graduated approach starting with a csDMARD.”
Patients who fail to receive adequate relief from a csDMARD could then try a biologic DMARD – a TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or IL-12/23 inhibitor, Dr. Gossec said. When skin involvement is minimal, any of these options are possible, she said. If skin involvement is significant, the panel recommended preferentially using an IL-17 or IL-12/23 inhibitor based on head-to-head trials in patients with psoriasis, she said.
When a biologic DMARD is not appropriate or fails, another option is to then try a targeted synthetic DMARD, such as a Janus kinase inhibitor. When none of these options are appropriate, or they all fail, another option for patients with mild oligo- or monoarthritis or in patients with limited skin involvement is apremilast (Otezla), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor. The draft recommendations also advise clinicians to be sure to distinguish fibromyalgia pain from enthesitis involvement, and they introduce the possibility of, with “great caution,” tapering down DMARD treatment in PsA patients who show sustained remission.
Dr. Gossec and Dr. Mease have both been consultants to and received honoraria from several companies. SEAM-PsA was sponsored by Amgen, the company that markets Enbrel.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Quality standards aim to improve worldwide spondyloarthritis care
MADRID – Referral, treatment, and rapid access to care are three of nine new quality standards developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) with the aim of improving the management of adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The other quality standards look at how to improve patient education and self-management and call for annual review, Uta Kiltz, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Several unmet needs such as delayed diagnosis and restricted access to treatment have been described in patients with axSpA worldwide,” Dr. Kiltz observed in an interview. Results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77[3]:405-11), for example, highlighted inequity in the prescription of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs across the globe.
“The variation in quality of care is noted across rheumatologic diseases,” said Dr. Kiltz, of Ruhr University Bochum and Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany. “Assessing the quality of care provided to patients with axSpA is important not only to patients and physicians, but also to providers and purchasers of health care.”
A major goal of ASAS is to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with axSpA. To address the many gaps in current care, the society set out to develop quality standards to optimize patients’ access to care and their overall treatment.
“A quality standard consists of a quality statement accompanied by a measure. The measure can be used to assess the quality of care or service provision specified in the treatment,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Quality standards are very different from recommendations or guidelines, she stressed. While the latter imply evidence-based actions that should be done to optimally diagnose and treat the disease, quality standards identify resources or processes that need to be optimized in high-priority areas for quality improvement.
The nine ASAS quality standards cover key areas for quality improvement relating to the care of adults with axSpA that need improvement worldwide. The statements were carefully phrased following a consensus, and the tools by which they could be measured agreed.
The first three standards concern the time to referral from primary to specialist care and state that people with a suspicion of axSpA are referred to a rheumatologist within 3 working days, assessed by a rheumatologist within 3 weeks after referral, and have their diagnostic work up completed within 2 months.
The next two quality standards concern pharmacologic management: Disease activity of people with axSpA is monitored under the supervision of a rheumatologist with validated composite scores at least twice a year, and in people with axSpA and active disease despite conventional therapy, treatment escalation to biologics is discussed.
Nonpharmacologic treatment is also covered, with the sixth quality standard stating: “People with axial SpA are informed about the benefits of regular exercise.”
Quality standard 7 states: “People with axSpA are offered education on the disease including self-management within 2 months of diagnosis,” Dr. Kiltz said. Rapid access to care is the focus of quality statement 8: “People with axSpA and disease flare or possible drug-related side effects receive advice within 2 working days of contacting the rheumatologist.”
The ninth and last quality standard states that people with axSpA should have a comprehensive annual review by a rheumatologist.
“These are the first quality standards applicable worldwide for the improvement of health care for adult patients with axSpA,” Dr. Kiltz said. “The ASAS quality standards are all measurable and achievable and are intended to minimize variation in quality of care.”
Dr. Kiltz had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kiltz U. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1-2. Abstract SP0004, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8514.
MADRID – Referral, treatment, and rapid access to care are three of nine new quality standards developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) with the aim of improving the management of adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The other quality standards look at how to improve patient education and self-management and call for annual review, Uta Kiltz, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Several unmet needs such as delayed diagnosis and restricted access to treatment have been described in patients with axSpA worldwide,” Dr. Kiltz observed in an interview. Results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77[3]:405-11), for example, highlighted inequity in the prescription of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs across the globe.
“The variation in quality of care is noted across rheumatologic diseases,” said Dr. Kiltz, of Ruhr University Bochum and Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany. “Assessing the quality of care provided to patients with axSpA is important not only to patients and physicians, but also to providers and purchasers of health care.”
A major goal of ASAS is to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with axSpA. To address the many gaps in current care, the society set out to develop quality standards to optimize patients’ access to care and their overall treatment.
“A quality standard consists of a quality statement accompanied by a measure. The measure can be used to assess the quality of care or service provision specified in the treatment,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Quality standards are very different from recommendations or guidelines, she stressed. While the latter imply evidence-based actions that should be done to optimally diagnose and treat the disease, quality standards identify resources or processes that need to be optimized in high-priority areas for quality improvement.
The nine ASAS quality standards cover key areas for quality improvement relating to the care of adults with axSpA that need improvement worldwide. The statements were carefully phrased following a consensus, and the tools by which they could be measured agreed.
The first three standards concern the time to referral from primary to specialist care and state that people with a suspicion of axSpA are referred to a rheumatologist within 3 working days, assessed by a rheumatologist within 3 weeks after referral, and have their diagnostic work up completed within 2 months.
The next two quality standards concern pharmacologic management: Disease activity of people with axSpA is monitored under the supervision of a rheumatologist with validated composite scores at least twice a year, and in people with axSpA and active disease despite conventional therapy, treatment escalation to biologics is discussed.
Nonpharmacologic treatment is also covered, with the sixth quality standard stating: “People with axial SpA are informed about the benefits of regular exercise.”
Quality standard 7 states: “People with axSpA are offered education on the disease including self-management within 2 months of diagnosis,” Dr. Kiltz said. Rapid access to care is the focus of quality statement 8: “People with axSpA and disease flare or possible drug-related side effects receive advice within 2 working days of contacting the rheumatologist.”
The ninth and last quality standard states that people with axSpA should have a comprehensive annual review by a rheumatologist.
“These are the first quality standards applicable worldwide for the improvement of health care for adult patients with axSpA,” Dr. Kiltz said. “The ASAS quality standards are all measurable and achievable and are intended to minimize variation in quality of care.”
Dr. Kiltz had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kiltz U. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1-2. Abstract SP0004, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8514.
MADRID – Referral, treatment, and rapid access to care are three of nine new quality standards developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) with the aim of improving the management of adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The other quality standards look at how to improve patient education and self-management and call for annual review, Uta Kiltz, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Several unmet needs such as delayed diagnosis and restricted access to treatment have been described in patients with axSpA worldwide,” Dr. Kiltz observed in an interview. Results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77[3]:405-11), for example, highlighted inequity in the prescription of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs across the globe.
“The variation in quality of care is noted across rheumatologic diseases,” said Dr. Kiltz, of Ruhr University Bochum and Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet in Herne, Germany. “Assessing the quality of care provided to patients with axSpA is important not only to patients and physicians, but also to providers and purchasers of health care.”
A major goal of ASAS is to improve quality of care and health outcomes in patients with axSpA. To address the many gaps in current care, the society set out to develop quality standards to optimize patients’ access to care and their overall treatment.
“A quality standard consists of a quality statement accompanied by a measure. The measure can be used to assess the quality of care or service provision specified in the treatment,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Quality standards are very different from recommendations or guidelines, she stressed. While the latter imply evidence-based actions that should be done to optimally diagnose and treat the disease, quality standards identify resources or processes that need to be optimized in high-priority areas for quality improvement.
The nine ASAS quality standards cover key areas for quality improvement relating to the care of adults with axSpA that need improvement worldwide. The statements were carefully phrased following a consensus, and the tools by which they could be measured agreed.
The first three standards concern the time to referral from primary to specialist care and state that people with a suspicion of axSpA are referred to a rheumatologist within 3 working days, assessed by a rheumatologist within 3 weeks after referral, and have their diagnostic work up completed within 2 months.
The next two quality standards concern pharmacologic management: Disease activity of people with axSpA is monitored under the supervision of a rheumatologist with validated composite scores at least twice a year, and in people with axSpA and active disease despite conventional therapy, treatment escalation to biologics is discussed.
Nonpharmacologic treatment is also covered, with the sixth quality standard stating: “People with axial SpA are informed about the benefits of regular exercise.”
Quality standard 7 states: “People with axSpA are offered education on the disease including self-management within 2 months of diagnosis,” Dr. Kiltz said. Rapid access to care is the focus of quality statement 8: “People with axSpA and disease flare or possible drug-related side effects receive advice within 2 working days of contacting the rheumatologist.”
The ninth and last quality standard states that people with axSpA should have a comprehensive annual review by a rheumatologist.
“These are the first quality standards applicable worldwide for the improvement of health care for adult patients with axSpA,” Dr. Kiltz said. “The ASAS quality standards are all measurable and achievable and are intended to minimize variation in quality of care.”
Dr. Kiltz had no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kiltz U. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1-2. Abstract SP0004, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8514.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Genetic variant could dictate rituximab response in lupus
MADRID – Response to rituximab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) might be dictated by the presence of a genetic variant that encodes the Fc gamma receptors (FcGRs), expressed on natural killer (NK) cells, according to findings from a single-center, longitudinal cohort study.
It is well known that not everyone with SLE will respond well to rituximab, but that some will, first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, explained in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Although data from clinical trials with rituximab in this patient setting have been essentially negative, the methodology of those trials has since been disputed, he observed. Indeed, subsequent data (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1829-36) have suggested that as many as 80% of patients could achieve a response with rituximab, particularly if there is complete B-cell depletion.
Previous researchers (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:875-7) have shown that a polymorphism (158V) in the Fc gamma receptor IIIA (FCGR3A) gene is associated with the response to rituximab-based therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This gene is important for antibody-dependent cellular-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).
The objective of the current study – an observational, prospective, longitudinal cohort study conducted in Leeds (England) – was therefore to see if the FCGR3A-158V polymorphism might influence response in patients with SLE.
“We were trying to find pretreatment biomarkers that could predict response to rituximab in SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof explained.
For the study, 85 patients who were treated with rituximab were assessed. The cohort was predominantly female (96%), with a mean age of 40 years. All of the patients had antinuclear antibodies, with just over half having anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, and two-thirds having extractable nuclear antigens. One-third had low complement (C3/C4) levels.
Complete B-cell depletion occurred in 63% of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele, a significantly higher rate than the 40% observed among those with 158 FF genotype (odds ratio, 2.73; P = .041). A significantly higher percentage of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele also achieved a major BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) response when compared against patients with the 158 FF variant (48% vs. 23%), with an odds ratio of 3.06 (P = .033).
Rituximab’s effect on NK cell-mediated B-cell killing may have played a key role in treatment response. Carrying the FCGR3A-158V allele was associated with greater degranulation activity versus the 158 FF variant.
Lastly, patients were more likely to remain on treatment with rituximab over a 10-year period if they had the FCGR3A-158V allele, compared with the 158 FF variant.
“These data suggest one mechanism by which patients with SLE might become resistant to the effects of rituximab, and could be used to guide therapy in the future,” Dr. Md Yusof suggested.
“Once this finding is validated, the clinical implication is that this genetic testing could be done prior to rituximab to identify those who will respond to therapy,” he postulated. “People with SLE who have this genetic variant with high affinity for rituximab are the ones that are better suited for rituximab therapy,” he added, otherwise a different CD20-directed antibody or alternative B-cell blockade therapies should be used.
The U.K. National Institute for Health Research funded the study. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest to disclose; some coauthors disclosed ties to Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, among other companies.
SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1069-70. Abstract SAT0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6919.
MADRID – Response to rituximab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) might be dictated by the presence of a genetic variant that encodes the Fc gamma receptors (FcGRs), expressed on natural killer (NK) cells, according to findings from a single-center, longitudinal cohort study.
It is well known that not everyone with SLE will respond well to rituximab, but that some will, first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, explained in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Although data from clinical trials with rituximab in this patient setting have been essentially negative, the methodology of those trials has since been disputed, he observed. Indeed, subsequent data (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1829-36) have suggested that as many as 80% of patients could achieve a response with rituximab, particularly if there is complete B-cell depletion.
Previous researchers (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:875-7) have shown that a polymorphism (158V) in the Fc gamma receptor IIIA (FCGR3A) gene is associated with the response to rituximab-based therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This gene is important for antibody-dependent cellular-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).
The objective of the current study – an observational, prospective, longitudinal cohort study conducted in Leeds (England) – was therefore to see if the FCGR3A-158V polymorphism might influence response in patients with SLE.
“We were trying to find pretreatment biomarkers that could predict response to rituximab in SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof explained.
For the study, 85 patients who were treated with rituximab were assessed. The cohort was predominantly female (96%), with a mean age of 40 years. All of the patients had antinuclear antibodies, with just over half having anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, and two-thirds having extractable nuclear antigens. One-third had low complement (C3/C4) levels.
Complete B-cell depletion occurred in 63% of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele, a significantly higher rate than the 40% observed among those with 158 FF genotype (odds ratio, 2.73; P = .041). A significantly higher percentage of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele also achieved a major BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) response when compared against patients with the 158 FF variant (48% vs. 23%), with an odds ratio of 3.06 (P = .033).
Rituximab’s effect on NK cell-mediated B-cell killing may have played a key role in treatment response. Carrying the FCGR3A-158V allele was associated with greater degranulation activity versus the 158 FF variant.
Lastly, patients were more likely to remain on treatment with rituximab over a 10-year period if they had the FCGR3A-158V allele, compared with the 158 FF variant.
“These data suggest one mechanism by which patients with SLE might become resistant to the effects of rituximab, and could be used to guide therapy in the future,” Dr. Md Yusof suggested.
“Once this finding is validated, the clinical implication is that this genetic testing could be done prior to rituximab to identify those who will respond to therapy,” he postulated. “People with SLE who have this genetic variant with high affinity for rituximab are the ones that are better suited for rituximab therapy,” he added, otherwise a different CD20-directed antibody or alternative B-cell blockade therapies should be used.
The U.K. National Institute for Health Research funded the study. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest to disclose; some coauthors disclosed ties to Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, among other companies.
SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1069-70. Abstract SAT0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6919.
MADRID – Response to rituximab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) might be dictated by the presence of a genetic variant that encodes the Fc gamma receptors (FcGRs), expressed on natural killer (NK) cells, according to findings from a single-center, longitudinal cohort study.
It is well known that not everyone with SLE will respond well to rituximab, but that some will, first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, explained in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Although data from clinical trials with rituximab in this patient setting have been essentially negative, the methodology of those trials has since been disputed, he observed. Indeed, subsequent data (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1829-36) have suggested that as many as 80% of patients could achieve a response with rituximab, particularly if there is complete B-cell depletion.
Previous researchers (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:875-7) have shown that a polymorphism (158V) in the Fc gamma receptor IIIA (FCGR3A) gene is associated with the response to rituximab-based therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This gene is important for antibody-dependent cellular-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).
The objective of the current study – an observational, prospective, longitudinal cohort study conducted in Leeds (England) – was therefore to see if the FCGR3A-158V polymorphism might influence response in patients with SLE.
“We were trying to find pretreatment biomarkers that could predict response to rituximab in SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof explained.
For the study, 85 patients who were treated with rituximab were assessed. The cohort was predominantly female (96%), with a mean age of 40 years. All of the patients had antinuclear antibodies, with just over half having anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, and two-thirds having extractable nuclear antigens. One-third had low complement (C3/C4) levels.
Complete B-cell depletion occurred in 63% of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele, a significantly higher rate than the 40% observed among those with 158 FF genotype (odds ratio, 2.73; P = .041). A significantly higher percentage of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele also achieved a major BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) response when compared against patients with the 158 FF variant (48% vs. 23%), with an odds ratio of 3.06 (P = .033).
Rituximab’s effect on NK cell-mediated B-cell killing may have played a key role in treatment response. Carrying the FCGR3A-158V allele was associated with greater degranulation activity versus the 158 FF variant.
Lastly, patients were more likely to remain on treatment with rituximab over a 10-year period if they had the FCGR3A-158V allele, compared with the 158 FF variant.
“These data suggest one mechanism by which patients with SLE might become resistant to the effects of rituximab, and could be used to guide therapy in the future,” Dr. Md Yusof suggested.
“Once this finding is validated, the clinical implication is that this genetic testing could be done prior to rituximab to identify those who will respond to therapy,” he postulated. “People with SLE who have this genetic variant with high affinity for rituximab are the ones that are better suited for rituximab therapy,” he added, otherwise a different CD20-directed antibody or alternative B-cell blockade therapies should be used.
The U.K. National Institute for Health Research funded the study. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest to disclose; some coauthors disclosed ties to Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, among other companies.
SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1069-70. Abstract SAT0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6919.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
