Denosumab boosted bone mineral density (BMD) over 12 months to a greater extent than did alendronate in a randomized, 12-month study. The investigator-initiated research compared BMD at the lumbar spine and elsewhere among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune conditions. Long-term glucocorticoid therapy places some people in this group at higher risk for adverse effects of bone density loss.

“Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment of rheumatic diseases, but [they are] a major risk factor for osteoporosis and fracture,” study author Chi Chiu Mok, MD, said in an interview.

Compared with baseline, adults randomly assigned to denosumab had a 3.5% increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months, compared with 2.5% among those taking alendronate, a significant difference. Dr. Mok, a consultant and honorary associate professor in the department of medicine and nuclear medicine at Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Given the knowledge that denosumab is more effective than alendronate in raising spinal BMD in chronic users of GCs without increasing adverse events, this drug may be considered as an alternative first-line therapy in higher-risk patients and in those who are contraindicated for the oral bisphosphonates,” he said.
 

Cost considerations

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody administered as a subcutaneous injection, available under the brand names Prolia and Xgeva. Alendronate is an oral agent available as both generic and brand name formulations.

“Yes, denosumab is more expensive, more costly than oral alendronate, but our study shows efficacy is better for steroid users,” Dr. Mok said in answer to a question about cost disparity between the two agents during his presentation at the meeting. “For patients who are contraindicated or have low compliance for bisphosphonate, or are high-risk patients, I recommend first-line use of denosumab.”

Researchers previously studied these agents, including a smaller study by Dr. Mok and colleagues that showed a BMD benefit after switching people on an oral bisphosphonate to denosumab. However, he said, “There is a paucity of data regarding comparative efficacy of denosumab and the bisphosphonates in long-term steroid users.”

To explore any differences in a larger patient population, the investigators randomly assigned adults with SLE and other autoimmune conditions to the two treatments: denosumab 60 mg subcutaneoulsy every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg/week. All patients also received 3,000 mg calcium and 1,000 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) each day.

After three discontinuations in denosumab cohort and four in the alendronate group, the researchers evaluated 69 people taking denosumab and 70 others taking alendronate. The discontinuations were caused by noncompliance, Dr. Mok said, not by adverse events.

Adverse events were reported, but the rate did not differ significantly between groups. Dr. Mok highlighted some notable differences, including more minor infections and arthralgias reported in the denosumab cohort. Chest discomfort was reported in one denosumab recipient versus no patients in the alendronate group. Dyspepsia/upper GI symptoms and dizziness/vertigo occurred more often in the alendronate group.

Women were 96% of the study population, and mean age was 50 years. A majority, 81%, had underlying SLE. Other diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, and polymyalgia rheumatica. The mean dose of prednisolone at study entry was 5.1 mg/day.
 

Key BMD and biomarker findings

BMD increased significantly in the spine, hip, and femoral neck in both treatment groups by 12 months. However, after adjustment for baseline BMD and covariates including age, menopause, and history of fracture, the gains in the denosumab group were significantly higher.

The increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months of 3.5% in the denosumab group versus 2.5% in the alendronate group was statistically significant (P = .045). Less significant was a 0.9% increase at the hip in the denosumab patients versus 1.6% in the alendronate group (P = .10), as well as femoral neck BMD gains of 1% in the denosumab group versus 1.5% in the alendronate group (P = .86).

Furthermore, “denosumab was more potent in suppressing the bone markers at 12 months,” Dr. Mok said.

Specifically, the percentage decrease in serum PINP (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) levels in the denosumab group was significantly greater than in the alendronate group (P = .001). Likewise, the decrease in CTX (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) was significantly greater in the denosumab cohort versus the alendronate cohort (P < .001).

“Dr. Mok’s study was a well-controlled investigation. The superiority of denosumab was impressive, especially given the small group sizes of 69 and 70,” session comoderator Gregg Silverman, MD, professor in the department of internal medicine and the department of pathology at New York University, said when asked for comment.

“However, bone density measurements may not tell the whole story. These results support a bigger and much larger-scale study to confirm that rates of fracture on denosumab are also reduced.”

No new symptomatic fractures occurred in either group during the study. The investigators are evaluating for any new radiologic fractures, with results pending.

Dr. Mok said “results of our study in Asian patients are largely confirmatory” of a previous 2018 comparison study and a 2019 comparison study, each sponsored by Amgen.

A small sample size, short duration of treatment, and the open-label design were limitations of the study.

The trial was an investigator-initiated study. Dr. Mok and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mok CC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract 1442.

Denosumab boosted bone mineral density (BMD) over 12 months to a greater extent than did alendronate in a randomized, 12-month study. The investigator-initiated research compared BMD at the lumbar spine and elsewhere among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune conditions. Long-term glucocorticoid therapy places some people in this group at higher risk for adverse effects of bone density loss.

“Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment of rheumatic diseases, but [they are] a major risk factor for osteoporosis and fracture,” study author Chi Chiu Mok, MD, said in an interview.

Compared with baseline, adults randomly assigned to denosumab had a 3.5% increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months, compared with 2.5% among those taking alendronate, a significant difference. Dr. Mok, a consultant and honorary associate professor in the department of medicine and nuclear medicine at Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Given the knowledge that denosumab is more effective than alendronate in raising spinal BMD in chronic users of GCs without increasing adverse events, this drug may be considered as an alternative first-line therapy in higher-risk patients and in those who are contraindicated for the oral bisphosphonates,” he said.
 

Cost considerations

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody administered as a subcutaneous injection, available under the brand names Prolia and Xgeva. Alendronate is an oral agent available as both generic and brand name formulations.

“Yes, denosumab is more expensive, more costly than oral alendronate, but our study shows efficacy is better for steroid users,” Dr. Mok said in answer to a question about cost disparity between the two agents during his presentation at the meeting. “For patients who are contraindicated or have low compliance for bisphosphonate, or are high-risk patients, I recommend first-line use of denosumab.”

Researchers previously studied these agents, including a smaller study by Dr. Mok and colleagues that showed a BMD benefit after switching people on an oral bisphosphonate to denosumab. However, he said, “There is a paucity of data regarding comparative efficacy of denosumab and the bisphosphonates in long-term steroid users.”

To explore any differences in a larger patient population, the investigators randomly assigned adults with SLE and other autoimmune conditions to the two treatments: denosumab 60 mg subcutaneoulsy every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg/week. All patients also received 3,000 mg calcium and 1,000 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) each day.

After three discontinuations in denosumab cohort and four in the alendronate group, the researchers evaluated 69 people taking denosumab and 70 others taking alendronate. The discontinuations were caused by noncompliance, Dr. Mok said, not by adverse events.

Adverse events were reported, but the rate did not differ significantly between groups. Dr. Mok highlighted some notable differences, including more minor infections and arthralgias reported in the denosumab cohort. Chest discomfort was reported in one denosumab recipient versus no patients in the alendronate group. Dyspepsia/upper GI symptoms and dizziness/vertigo occurred more often in the alendronate group.

Women were 96% of the study population, and mean age was 50 years. A majority, 81%, had underlying SLE. Other diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, and polymyalgia rheumatica. The mean dose of prednisolone at study entry was 5.1 mg/day.
 

Key BMD and biomarker findings

BMD increased significantly in the spine, hip, and femoral neck in both treatment groups by 12 months. However, after adjustment for baseline BMD and covariates including age, menopause, and history of fracture, the gains in the denosumab group were significantly higher.

The increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months of 3.5% in the denosumab group versus 2.5% in the alendronate group was statistically significant (P = .045). Less significant was a 0.9% increase at the hip in the denosumab patients versus 1.6% in the alendronate group (P = .10), as well as femoral neck BMD gains of 1% in the denosumab group versus 1.5% in the alendronate group (P = .86).

Furthermore, “denosumab was more potent in suppressing the bone markers at 12 months,” Dr. Mok said.

Specifically, the percentage decrease in serum PINP (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) levels in the denosumab group was significantly greater than in the alendronate group (P = .001). Likewise, the decrease in CTX (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) was significantly greater in the denosumab cohort versus the alendronate cohort (P < .001).

“Dr. Mok’s study was a well-controlled investigation. The superiority of denosumab was impressive, especially given the small group sizes of 69 and 70,” session comoderator Gregg Silverman, MD, professor in the department of internal medicine and the department of pathology at New York University, said when asked for comment.

“However, bone density measurements may not tell the whole story. These results support a bigger and much larger-scale study to confirm that rates of fracture on denosumab are also reduced.”

No new symptomatic fractures occurred in either group during the study. The investigators are evaluating for any new radiologic fractures, with results pending.

Dr. Mok said “results of our study in Asian patients are largely confirmatory” of a previous 2018 comparison study and a 2019 comparison study, each sponsored by Amgen.

A small sample size, short duration of treatment, and the open-label design were limitations of the study.

The trial was an investigator-initiated study. Dr. Mok and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mok CC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract 1442.

Denosumab boosted bone mineral density (BMD) over 12 months to a greater extent than did alendronate in a randomized, 12-month study. The investigator-initiated research compared BMD at the lumbar spine and elsewhere among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune conditions. Long-term glucocorticoid therapy places some people in this group at higher risk for adverse effects of bone density loss.

“Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment of rheumatic diseases, but [they are] a major risk factor for osteoporosis and fracture,” study author Chi Chiu Mok, MD, said in an interview.

Compared with baseline, adults randomly assigned to denosumab had a 3.5% increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months, compared with 2.5% among those taking alendronate, a significant difference. Dr. Mok, a consultant and honorary associate professor in the department of medicine and nuclear medicine at Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Given the knowledge that denosumab is more effective than alendronate in raising spinal BMD in chronic users of GCs without increasing adverse events, this drug may be considered as an alternative first-line therapy in higher-risk patients and in those who are contraindicated for the oral bisphosphonates,” he said.
 

Cost considerations

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody administered as a subcutaneous injection, available under the brand names Prolia and Xgeva. Alendronate is an oral agent available as both generic and brand name formulations.

“Yes, denosumab is more expensive, more costly than oral alendronate, but our study shows efficacy is better for steroid users,” Dr. Mok said in answer to a question about cost disparity between the two agents during his presentation at the meeting. “For patients who are contraindicated or have low compliance for bisphosphonate, or are high-risk patients, I recommend first-line use of denosumab.”

Researchers previously studied these agents, including a smaller study by Dr. Mok and colleagues that showed a BMD benefit after switching people on an oral bisphosphonate to denosumab. However, he said, “There is a paucity of data regarding comparative efficacy of denosumab and the bisphosphonates in long-term steroid users.”

To explore any differences in a larger patient population, the investigators randomly assigned adults with SLE and other autoimmune conditions to the two treatments: denosumab 60 mg subcutaneoulsy every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg/week. All patients also received 3,000 mg calcium and 1,000 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) each day.

After three discontinuations in denosumab cohort and four in the alendronate group, the researchers evaluated 69 people taking denosumab and 70 others taking alendronate. The discontinuations were caused by noncompliance, Dr. Mok said, not by adverse events.

Adverse events were reported, but the rate did not differ significantly between groups. Dr. Mok highlighted some notable differences, including more minor infections and arthralgias reported in the denosumab cohort. Chest discomfort was reported in one denosumab recipient versus no patients in the alendronate group. Dyspepsia/upper GI symptoms and dizziness/vertigo occurred more often in the alendronate group.

Women were 96% of the study population, and mean age was 50 years. A majority, 81%, had underlying SLE. Other diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, and polymyalgia rheumatica. The mean dose of prednisolone at study entry was 5.1 mg/day.
 

Key BMD and biomarker findings

BMD increased significantly in the spine, hip, and femoral neck in both treatment groups by 12 months. However, after adjustment for baseline BMD and covariates including age, menopause, and history of fracture, the gains in the denosumab group were significantly higher.

The increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months of 3.5% in the denosumab group versus 2.5% in the alendronate group was statistically significant (P = .045). Less significant was a 0.9% increase at the hip in the denosumab patients versus 1.6% in the alendronate group (P = .10), as well as femoral neck BMD gains of 1% in the denosumab group versus 1.5% in the alendronate group (P = .86).

Furthermore, “denosumab was more potent in suppressing the bone markers at 12 months,” Dr. Mok said.

Specifically, the percentage decrease in serum PINP (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) levels in the denosumab group was significantly greater than in the alendronate group (P = .001). Likewise, the decrease in CTX (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) was significantly greater in the denosumab cohort versus the alendronate cohort (P < .001).

“Dr. Mok’s study was a well-controlled investigation. The superiority of denosumab was impressive, especially given the small group sizes of 69 and 70,” session comoderator Gregg Silverman, MD, professor in the department of internal medicine and the department of pathology at New York University, said when asked for comment.

“However, bone density measurements may not tell the whole story. These results support a bigger and much larger-scale study to confirm that rates of fracture on denosumab are also reduced.”

No new symptomatic fractures occurred in either group during the study. The investigators are evaluating for any new radiologic fractures, with results pending.

Dr. Mok said “results of our study in Asian patients are largely confirmatory” of a previous 2018 comparison study and a 2019 comparison study, each sponsored by Amgen.

A small sample size, short duration of treatment, and the open-label design were limitations of the study.

The trial was an investigator-initiated study. Dr. Mok and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mok CC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract 1442.

About 70% of patients on the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) achieved high-efficacy responses without need for any supplemental topical therapies through 48 weeks of follow-up in the JADE EXTEND study, Kristian Reich, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The head-turning outcomes achieved at the higher studied dose of 200 mg once daily as monotherapy – namely, 87% of patients had an EASI-75 response, defined as at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and 62% had an EASI-90 response – herald a new era in the management of atopic dermatitis, predicted Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“I think we will see an evolution in the treatment goals in atopic dermatitis. It’s really good to see nearly 90% of the patients achieved EASI-75 over time. I am completely convinced that if you ultimately want to have a happy patient, you will see treatment goals moving up. We have already seen this in psoriasis. I want to see drugs that give the majority of my patients an EASI-75. And ultimately I want to see EASI-90 for my patients,” he said.

Concurrent with his presentation at the EADV congress, Pfizer announced it has filed for marketing approval of abrocitinib at 100 mg and 200 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. The Food and Drug Administration has granted the application priority review status, with a decision due next April. The company has also filed for marketing approval with the European Medicines Agency.

The JADE EXTEND study is an ongoing extension of the previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 trials. The two trials included a total of 309 patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day and 314 on the selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor at 100 mg/day, 519 of whom subsequently entered the long-term extension study on their same dose. The 70% who required no supplemental topical therapy through 48 weeks were the focus of the analysis presented by Dr. Reich.

The proportion of strong responders increased up until the week 24 or 36 assessments, then remained steady until week 48. For example, the EASI-75 rate in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day rose from 82.5% at week 16, to 86.2% at week 24, 90.1% at week 36, and reached 87.2% at week 48. The EASI-90 rates at the same time points were 56.7%, 64.5%, 65.5%, and 61.6%, respectively. And the EASI-100 rates were 24%, 31.6%, 29.6%, and 24%, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the EASI-75 rates in patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day were less robust: 64.4% at week 16, 75.5% at week 24, 74.5% at week 36, and 68% at week 48.

An Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – was achieved at week 16 in 55% of patients on 200 mg/day, 64.5% at week 24, 66% at week 36, and 60.5% at week 48. In patients on the 100-mg dose, the corresponding figures were 36.5%, 46.6%, 53.3%, and 45.2%.

A hallmark of all of the JAK inhibitors under study for AD is what Dr. Reich characterized as “an amazingly fast reduction of itch,” the dominant symptom of the disease. A clinically meaningful reduction of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale – a response of 4 or greater is considered clinically important – from the mean baseline score of 7.1 was present at week 12 in 56.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, in 74.3% at week 16, and in 72.5% at week 48. The proportion of patients achieving this endpoint on 100 mg was 41.6% at week 12, 49.4% at week 16, and 52% at week 48.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6.1% of JADE EXTEND participants on abrocitinib at 100 mg and 12.8% of those on 200 mg. These events included oral herpes and elevated creatine phosphokinase levels. The sole case of pulmonary embolism that occurred during the study was deemed unrelated to treatment.

“What this is telling me here is there are no signals that we haven’t seen earlier with this drug and with other JAK inhibitors before,” the dermatologist observed. “But I want to see more data. I want to see the overall safety, not just for a year, but for 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.”

Asked by an audience member if nonresponsiveness to one JAK inhibitor predicts nonresponse to others, Dr. Reich speculated that it’s likely to be so. He noted that all three of the JAK inhibitors furthest along in the developmental pipeline for atopic dermatitis – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – are inhibitors of JAK 1, although baricitinib also targets JAK 2.

“I would think that if you really are a nonresponder to any of these that it will be hard to get a good response with the others. We’re not talking about antibodies here, where there may be different epitopes. The affinity is different, and we have seen that if you have no response to a weak TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor, you can still have a response to a strong TNF inhibitor. I don’t expect the same here,” according to Dr. Reich.

He reported serving as an adviser to and paid clinical research for Pfizer, which sponsored JADE EXTEND, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

About 70% of patients on the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) achieved high-efficacy responses without need for any supplemental topical therapies through 48 weeks of follow-up in the JADE EXTEND study, Kristian Reich, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The head-turning outcomes achieved at the higher studied dose of 200 mg once daily as monotherapy – namely, 87% of patients had an EASI-75 response, defined as at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and 62% had an EASI-90 response – herald a new era in the management of atopic dermatitis, predicted Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“I think we will see an evolution in the treatment goals in atopic dermatitis. It’s really good to see nearly 90% of the patients achieved EASI-75 over time. I am completely convinced that if you ultimately want to have a happy patient, you will see treatment goals moving up. We have already seen this in psoriasis. I want to see drugs that give the majority of my patients an EASI-75. And ultimately I want to see EASI-90 for my patients,” he said.

Concurrent with his presentation at the EADV congress, Pfizer announced it has filed for marketing approval of abrocitinib at 100 mg and 200 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. The Food and Drug Administration has granted the application priority review status, with a decision due next April. The company has also filed for marketing approval with the European Medicines Agency.

The JADE EXTEND study is an ongoing extension of the previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 trials. The two trials included a total of 309 patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day and 314 on the selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor at 100 mg/day, 519 of whom subsequently entered the long-term extension study on their same dose. The 70% who required no supplemental topical therapy through 48 weeks were the focus of the analysis presented by Dr. Reich.

The proportion of strong responders increased up until the week 24 or 36 assessments, then remained steady until week 48. For example, the EASI-75 rate in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day rose from 82.5% at week 16, to 86.2% at week 24, 90.1% at week 36, and reached 87.2% at week 48. The EASI-90 rates at the same time points were 56.7%, 64.5%, 65.5%, and 61.6%, respectively. And the EASI-100 rates were 24%, 31.6%, 29.6%, and 24%, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the EASI-75 rates in patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day were less robust: 64.4% at week 16, 75.5% at week 24, 74.5% at week 36, and 68% at week 48.

An Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – was achieved at week 16 in 55% of patients on 200 mg/day, 64.5% at week 24, 66% at week 36, and 60.5% at week 48. In patients on the 100-mg dose, the corresponding figures were 36.5%, 46.6%, 53.3%, and 45.2%.

A hallmark of all of the JAK inhibitors under study for AD is what Dr. Reich characterized as “an amazingly fast reduction of itch,” the dominant symptom of the disease. A clinically meaningful reduction of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale – a response of 4 or greater is considered clinically important – from the mean baseline score of 7.1 was present at week 12 in 56.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, in 74.3% at week 16, and in 72.5% at week 48. The proportion of patients achieving this endpoint on 100 mg was 41.6% at week 12, 49.4% at week 16, and 52% at week 48.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6.1% of JADE EXTEND participants on abrocitinib at 100 mg and 12.8% of those on 200 mg. These events included oral herpes and elevated creatine phosphokinase levels. The sole case of pulmonary embolism that occurred during the study was deemed unrelated to treatment.

“What this is telling me here is there are no signals that we haven’t seen earlier with this drug and with other JAK inhibitors before,” the dermatologist observed. “But I want to see more data. I want to see the overall safety, not just for a year, but for 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.”

Asked by an audience member if nonresponsiveness to one JAK inhibitor predicts nonresponse to others, Dr. Reich speculated that it’s likely to be so. He noted that all three of the JAK inhibitors furthest along in the developmental pipeline for atopic dermatitis – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – are inhibitors of JAK 1, although baricitinib also targets JAK 2.

“I would think that if you really are a nonresponder to any of these that it will be hard to get a good response with the others. We’re not talking about antibodies here, where there may be different epitopes. The affinity is different, and we have seen that if you have no response to a weak TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor, you can still have a response to a strong TNF inhibitor. I don’t expect the same here,” according to Dr. Reich.

He reported serving as an adviser to and paid clinical research for Pfizer, which sponsored JADE EXTEND, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

About 70% of patients on the oral selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) achieved high-efficacy responses without need for any supplemental topical therapies through 48 weeks of follow-up in the JADE EXTEND study, Kristian Reich, MD, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

The head-turning outcomes achieved at the higher studied dose of 200 mg once daily as monotherapy – namely, 87% of patients had an EASI-75 response, defined as at least a 75% reduction from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, and 62% had an EASI-90 response – herald a new era in the management of atopic dermatitis, predicted Dr. Reich, of the Center for Translational Research in Inflammatory Skin Diseases at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

“I think we will see an evolution in the treatment goals in atopic dermatitis. It’s really good to see nearly 90% of the patients achieved EASI-75 over time. I am completely convinced that if you ultimately want to have a happy patient, you will see treatment goals moving up. We have already seen this in psoriasis. I want to see drugs that give the majority of my patients an EASI-75. And ultimately I want to see EASI-90 for my patients,” he said.

Concurrent with his presentation at the EADV congress, Pfizer announced it has filed for marketing approval of abrocitinib at 100 mg and 200 mg once daily for the treatment of moderate to severe AD. The Food and Drug Administration has granted the application priority review status, with a decision due next April. The company has also filed for marketing approval with the European Medicines Agency.

The JADE EXTEND study is an ongoing extension of the previously reported phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week JADE MONO-1 and JADE MONO-2 trials. The two trials included a total of 309 patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day and 314 on the selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor at 100 mg/day, 519 of whom subsequently entered the long-term extension study on their same dose. The 70% who required no supplemental topical therapy through 48 weeks were the focus of the analysis presented by Dr. Reich.

The proportion of strong responders increased up until the week 24 or 36 assessments, then remained steady until week 48. For example, the EASI-75 rate in patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg/day rose from 82.5% at week 16, to 86.2% at week 24, 90.1% at week 36, and reached 87.2% at week 48. The EASI-90 rates at the same time points were 56.7%, 64.5%, 65.5%, and 61.6%, respectively. And the EASI-100 rates were 24%, 31.6%, 29.6%, and 24%, respectively.

Not surprisingly, the EASI-75 rates in patients on abrocitinib at 100 mg/day were less robust: 64.4% at week 16, 75.5% at week 24, 74.5% at week 36, and 68% at week 48.

An Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 – that is, clear or almost clear – was achieved at week 16 in 55% of patients on 200 mg/day, 64.5% at week 24, 66% at week 36, and 60.5% at week 48. In patients on the 100-mg dose, the corresponding figures were 36.5%, 46.6%, 53.3%, and 45.2%.

A hallmark of all of the JAK inhibitors under study for AD is what Dr. Reich characterized as “an amazingly fast reduction of itch,” the dominant symptom of the disease. A clinically meaningful reduction of at least 4 points in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale – a response of 4 or greater is considered clinically important – from the mean baseline score of 7.1 was present at week 12 in 56.3% of patients on abrocitinib at 200 mg, in 74.3% at week 16, and in 72.5% at week 48. The proportion of patients achieving this endpoint on 100 mg was 41.6% at week 12, 49.4% at week 16, and 52% at week 48.

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 6.1% of JADE EXTEND participants on abrocitinib at 100 mg and 12.8% of those on 200 mg. These events included oral herpes and elevated creatine phosphokinase levels. The sole case of pulmonary embolism that occurred during the study was deemed unrelated to treatment.

“What this is telling me here is there are no signals that we haven’t seen earlier with this drug and with other JAK inhibitors before,” the dermatologist observed. “But I want to see more data. I want to see the overall safety, not just for a year, but for 2, 3, 4, and 5 years.”

Asked by an audience member if nonresponsiveness to one JAK inhibitor predicts nonresponse to others, Dr. Reich speculated that it’s likely to be so. He noted that all three of the JAK inhibitors furthest along in the developmental pipeline for atopic dermatitis – abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib – are inhibitors of JAK 1, although baricitinib also targets JAK 2.

“I would think that if you really are a nonresponder to any of these that it will be hard to get a good response with the others. We’re not talking about antibodies here, where there may be different epitopes. The affinity is different, and we have seen that if you have no response to a weak TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitor, you can still have a response to a strong TNF inhibitor. I don’t expect the same here,” according to Dr. Reich.

He reported serving as an adviser to and paid clinical research for Pfizer, which sponsored JADE EXTEND, as well as more than two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The Department of Veterans Affairs is recruiting 8,000 volunteers for the Phase 3 clinical trials of at least four COVID-19 vaccine candidates at 20 federal medical facilities across the United States, according to officials with the VA and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative to fast-track a coronavirus vaccine.

The largely unpublicized effort follows a Department of Defense announcement in September that it has partnered with AstraZeneca to recruit volunteers at five of its medical facilities, which are separate from the VA system. DOD is also is in talks with developers of other vaccine candidates, although officials won’t say which ones.

Both federal departments have long experience in medical research and diverse populations – a crucial component of effective clinical trials, said J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president and director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

Since active troops are essential to national security, and veterans are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, both departments have a vested interest in supporting the development of safe, effective vaccines, Mr. Morrison said.

“On the DOD active servicemen and -women side, it’s a question of making sure they’re ready, they are protected,” Mr. Morrison said. “With VA, their population, all elderly and infirm with underlying conditions, they could really be suffering if we don’t get a vaccine.”

According to a VA website, of its 20 medical centers involved, 17 would be part of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial, while the three others are recruiting – or have completed recruitment – for advanced-stage trials for Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer vaccines.

Matthew Hepburn, MD, head of vaccine development at Operation Warp Speed, said the VA effort lets veterans contribute to the overall well-being of the country.

“This is another way they can continue to serve in this way, fighting the pandemic as a volunteer,” Dr. Hepburn said during a discussion of vaccine and therapeutics development hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 27.

It’s not unusual for the military to participate in multicenter trials for treatments of ailments as diverse as cancer and trauma. Historically, many vaccines have been tested first by the military.

In the general population, clinicians often have difficulty recruiting African Americans and other minorities for medical research, and “the military provides a rich opportunity to find volunteers for those groups,” said retired Rear Adm. Thomas Cullison, MD, a doctor and former deputy surgeon general for the Navy.

Military health facilities are held to the same standards as private research facilities, he said.

No service members will be required to participate in the COVID vaccine trials. All volunteers will be paid by the developer.

Support for routine vaccinations runs high in the military, but some have expressed concerns about new vaccines and mandatory inoculations, especially for anthrax. In a 2002 federal study, 85% of those who received that vaccine reported an adverse reaction, with just under half noticing minor redness at the injection site. But nearly a quarter of the side effects reported were more systemic, including fevers, chills, fatigue and joint pain.

That survey of a small group of National Guard and Reserve members found that, while 73% said they believe immunizations are effective, two-thirds said they did not support the mandatory anthrax program, and 6 in 10 said they were not satisfied with the information they were given on the vaccines.

To quell concerns over the military’s role in supporting COVID vaccine development, the Pentagon has reiterated that troops or their dependents interested in participating in the research must provide voluntary written consent, and they will be allowed to take part only if they will be in the same location for the length of the research, expected to last at least 2 years.

In addition, active-duty members such as new recruits and boot camp participants will not be allowed to volunteer because they are “considered vulnerable from an ethical and regulatory standpoint,” an official said.

At the VA, officials are seeking to recruit healthy veterans aged 18-65 years old who are not pregnant and may be at risk for exposure. As with trials conducted in civilian facilities, participants will be paid by the developer, VA spokesperson Christina Noel said.

Also, VA nurses and caseworkers also are being asked to identify their sickest, highest-risk patients to determine who should be at the top of the list once a vaccine is approved, according to a VA nurse and other health officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

The U.S. military has a long history of contributing to research on vaccines, including a key role in developing inoculations against yellow fever and adenovirus, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing its own vaccine against the coronavirus.

Some segments of the population remain skeptical of federal medical experiments. A survey by AP-NORC in May found that Black people are particularly reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine. Many have concerns about federal research in part because of associations with the infamous Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments, in which U.S. Public Health Service officials intentionally withheld a cure from Black men infected with the disease.

But Mr. Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Defense Department and VA are a “natural fit” for the COVID vaccine trials.

“DOD has lots of expertise. They know how to vaccinate; they know how to reach communities. They have a whole science infrastructure and research-and-development infrastructure. And when you are thinking what the mission of VA is, [VA] sees this is part of their mission,” Mr. Morrison said.

The Defense Department announced its agreement with AstraZeneca in September, shortly before the drugmaker’s vaccine trial was put on hold to study a serious medical condition that one participant reported. That research was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to begin again Oct. 23. The military plans to restart its efforts to recruit 3,000 volunteers.

The Pentagon has also signed an agreement with another vaccine developer, the head of the Defense Health Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, told reporters Oct. 8. He wouldn’t provide the company’s name.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have called, unsuccessfully, for the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate what they say is a lack of Pentagon transparency on its role in vaccine development and distribution. The Defense Department has awarded more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed contracts through an intermediary, Advanced Technology International, and the two senators want more information about those contracts.

“There may well be a valuable role for DoD officials in [Operation Warp Speed] – particularly given the department’s logistical capacity,” they wrote to the committee chair and ranking member. “But it is important that Congress conduct appropriate oversight of, and understand, DoD’s activities in this area.”

Neither department has disclosed the financial arrangements they have made with developers to support the vaccine research.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is recruiting 8,000 volunteers for the Phase 3 clinical trials of at least four COVID-19 vaccine candidates at 20 federal medical facilities across the United States, according to officials with the VA and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative to fast-track a coronavirus vaccine.

The largely unpublicized effort follows a Department of Defense announcement in September that it has partnered with AstraZeneca to recruit volunteers at five of its medical facilities, which are separate from the VA system. DOD is also is in talks with developers of other vaccine candidates, although officials won’t say which ones.

Both federal departments have long experience in medical research and diverse populations – a crucial component of effective clinical trials, said J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president and director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

Since active troops are essential to national security, and veterans are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, both departments have a vested interest in supporting the development of safe, effective vaccines, Mr. Morrison said.

“On the DOD active servicemen and -women side, it’s a question of making sure they’re ready, they are protected,” Mr. Morrison said. “With VA, their population, all elderly and infirm with underlying conditions, they could really be suffering if we don’t get a vaccine.”

According to a VA website, of its 20 medical centers involved, 17 would be part of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial, while the three others are recruiting – or have completed recruitment – for advanced-stage trials for Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer vaccines.

Matthew Hepburn, MD, head of vaccine development at Operation Warp Speed, said the VA effort lets veterans contribute to the overall well-being of the country.

“This is another way they can continue to serve in this way, fighting the pandemic as a volunteer,” Dr. Hepburn said during a discussion of vaccine and therapeutics development hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 27.

It’s not unusual for the military to participate in multicenter trials for treatments of ailments as diverse as cancer and trauma. Historically, many vaccines have been tested first by the military.

In the general population, clinicians often have difficulty recruiting African Americans and other minorities for medical research, and “the military provides a rich opportunity to find volunteers for those groups,” said retired Rear Adm. Thomas Cullison, MD, a doctor and former deputy surgeon general for the Navy.

Military health facilities are held to the same standards as private research facilities, he said.

No service members will be required to participate in the COVID vaccine trials. All volunteers will be paid by the developer.

Support for routine vaccinations runs high in the military, but some have expressed concerns about new vaccines and mandatory inoculations, especially for anthrax. In a 2002 federal study, 85% of those who received that vaccine reported an adverse reaction, with just under half noticing minor redness at the injection site. But nearly a quarter of the side effects reported were more systemic, including fevers, chills, fatigue and joint pain.

That survey of a small group of National Guard and Reserve members found that, while 73% said they believe immunizations are effective, two-thirds said they did not support the mandatory anthrax program, and 6 in 10 said they were not satisfied with the information they were given on the vaccines.

To quell concerns over the military’s role in supporting COVID vaccine development, the Pentagon has reiterated that troops or their dependents interested in participating in the research must provide voluntary written consent, and they will be allowed to take part only if they will be in the same location for the length of the research, expected to last at least 2 years.

In addition, active-duty members such as new recruits and boot camp participants will not be allowed to volunteer because they are “considered vulnerable from an ethical and regulatory standpoint,” an official said.

At the VA, officials are seeking to recruit healthy veterans aged 18-65 years old who are not pregnant and may be at risk for exposure. As with trials conducted in civilian facilities, participants will be paid by the developer, VA spokesperson Christina Noel said.

Also, VA nurses and caseworkers also are being asked to identify their sickest, highest-risk patients to determine who should be at the top of the list once a vaccine is approved, according to a VA nurse and other health officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

The U.S. military has a long history of contributing to research on vaccines, including a key role in developing inoculations against yellow fever and adenovirus, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing its own vaccine against the coronavirus.

Some segments of the population remain skeptical of federal medical experiments. A survey by AP-NORC in May found that Black people are particularly reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine. Many have concerns about federal research in part because of associations with the infamous Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments, in which U.S. Public Health Service officials intentionally withheld a cure from Black men infected with the disease.

But Mr. Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Defense Department and VA are a “natural fit” for the COVID vaccine trials.

“DOD has lots of expertise. They know how to vaccinate; they know how to reach communities. They have a whole science infrastructure and research-and-development infrastructure. And when you are thinking what the mission of VA is, [VA] sees this is part of their mission,” Mr. Morrison said.

The Defense Department announced its agreement with AstraZeneca in September, shortly before the drugmaker’s vaccine trial was put on hold to study a serious medical condition that one participant reported. That research was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to begin again Oct. 23. The military plans to restart its efforts to recruit 3,000 volunteers.

The Pentagon has also signed an agreement with another vaccine developer, the head of the Defense Health Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, told reporters Oct. 8. He wouldn’t provide the company’s name.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have called, unsuccessfully, for the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate what they say is a lack of Pentagon transparency on its role in vaccine development and distribution. The Defense Department has awarded more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed contracts through an intermediary, Advanced Technology International, and the two senators want more information about those contracts.

“There may well be a valuable role for DoD officials in [Operation Warp Speed] – particularly given the department’s logistical capacity,” they wrote to the committee chair and ranking member. “But it is important that Congress conduct appropriate oversight of, and understand, DoD’s activities in this area.”

Neither department has disclosed the financial arrangements they have made with developers to support the vaccine research.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is recruiting 8,000 volunteers for the Phase 3 clinical trials of at least four COVID-19 vaccine candidates at 20 federal medical facilities across the United States, according to officials with the VA and Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s initiative to fast-track a coronavirus vaccine.

The largely unpublicized effort follows a Department of Defense announcement in September that it has partnered with AstraZeneca to recruit volunteers at five of its medical facilities, which are separate from the VA system. DOD is also is in talks with developers of other vaccine candidates, although officials won’t say which ones.

Both federal departments have long experience in medical research and diverse populations – a crucial component of effective clinical trials, said J. Stephen Morrison, senior vice president and director of global health policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in Washington.

Since active troops are essential to national security, and veterans are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19, both departments have a vested interest in supporting the development of safe, effective vaccines, Mr. Morrison said.

“On the DOD active servicemen and -women side, it’s a question of making sure they’re ready, they are protected,” Mr. Morrison said. “With VA, their population, all elderly and infirm with underlying conditions, they could really be suffering if we don’t get a vaccine.”

According to a VA website, of its 20 medical centers involved, 17 would be part of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine trial, while the three others are recruiting – or have completed recruitment – for advanced-stage trials for Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer vaccines.

Matthew Hepburn, MD, head of vaccine development at Operation Warp Speed, said the VA effort lets veterans contribute to the overall well-being of the country.

“This is another way they can continue to serve in this way, fighting the pandemic as a volunteer,” Dr. Hepburn said during a discussion of vaccine and therapeutics development hosted by the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 27.

It’s not unusual for the military to participate in multicenter trials for treatments of ailments as diverse as cancer and trauma. Historically, many vaccines have been tested first by the military.

In the general population, clinicians often have difficulty recruiting African Americans and other minorities for medical research, and “the military provides a rich opportunity to find volunteers for those groups,” said retired Rear Adm. Thomas Cullison, MD, a doctor and former deputy surgeon general for the Navy.

Military health facilities are held to the same standards as private research facilities, he said.

No service members will be required to participate in the COVID vaccine trials. All volunteers will be paid by the developer.

Support for routine vaccinations runs high in the military, but some have expressed concerns about new vaccines and mandatory inoculations, especially for anthrax. In a 2002 federal study, 85% of those who received that vaccine reported an adverse reaction, with just under half noticing minor redness at the injection site. But nearly a quarter of the side effects reported were more systemic, including fevers, chills, fatigue and joint pain.

That survey of a small group of National Guard and Reserve members found that, while 73% said they believe immunizations are effective, two-thirds said they did not support the mandatory anthrax program, and 6 in 10 said they were not satisfied with the information they were given on the vaccines.

To quell concerns over the military’s role in supporting COVID vaccine development, the Pentagon has reiterated that troops or their dependents interested in participating in the research must provide voluntary written consent, and they will be allowed to take part only if they will be in the same location for the length of the research, expected to last at least 2 years.

In addition, active-duty members such as new recruits and boot camp participants will not be allowed to volunteer because they are “considered vulnerable from an ethical and regulatory standpoint,” an official said.

At the VA, officials are seeking to recruit healthy veterans aged 18-65 years old who are not pregnant and may be at risk for exposure. As with trials conducted in civilian facilities, participants will be paid by the developer, VA spokesperson Christina Noel said.

Also, VA nurses and caseworkers also are being asked to identify their sickest, highest-risk patients to determine who should be at the top of the list once a vaccine is approved, according to a VA nurse and other health officials who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

The U.S. military has a long history of contributing to research on vaccines, including a key role in developing inoculations against yellow fever and adenovirus, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is developing its own vaccine against the coronavirus.

Some segments of the population remain skeptical of federal medical experiments. A survey by AP-NORC in May found that Black people are particularly reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine. Many have concerns about federal research in part because of associations with the infamous Tuskegee Institute syphilis experiments, in which U.S. Public Health Service officials intentionally withheld a cure from Black men infected with the disease.

But Mr. Morrison, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Defense Department and VA are a “natural fit” for the COVID vaccine trials.

“DOD has lots of expertise. They know how to vaccinate; they know how to reach communities. They have a whole science infrastructure and research-and-development infrastructure. And when you are thinking what the mission of VA is, [VA] sees this is part of their mission,” Mr. Morrison said.

The Defense Department announced its agreement with AstraZeneca in September, shortly before the drugmaker’s vaccine trial was put on hold to study a serious medical condition that one participant reported. That research was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to begin again Oct. 23. The military plans to restart its efforts to recruit 3,000 volunteers.

The Pentagon has also signed an agreement with another vaccine developer, the head of the Defense Health Agency, Army Lt. Gen. Ronald Place, told reporters Oct. 8. He wouldn’t provide the company’s name.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) have called, unsuccessfully, for the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate what they say is a lack of Pentagon transparency on its role in vaccine development and distribution. The Defense Department has awarded more than $6 billion in Operation Warp Speed contracts through an intermediary, Advanced Technology International, and the two senators want more information about those contracts.

“There may well be a valuable role for DoD officials in [Operation Warp Speed] – particularly given the department’s logistical capacity,” they wrote to the committee chair and ranking member. “But it is important that Congress conduct appropriate oversight of, and understand, DoD’s activities in this area.”

Neither department has disclosed the financial arrangements they have made with developers to support the vaccine research.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in a case that, for the third time in eight years, could result in the justices striking down the Affordable Care Act.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The case, California v. Texas, is the result of a change to the health law made by Congress in 2017. As part of a major tax bill, Congress reduced to zero the penalty for not having health insurance. But it was that penalty – a tax – that the high court ruled made the law constitutional in a 2012 decision, argues a group of Republican state attorneys general. Without the tax, they say in their suit, the rest of the law must fall, too.

After originally contending that the entire law should not be struck down when the suit was filed in 2018, the Trump administration changed course in 2019 and joined the GOP officials who brought the case.

Here are some key questions and answers about the case.
 

What are the possibilities for how the court could rule?

There is a long list of ways this could play out.

The justices could declare the entire law unconstitutional – which is what a federal district judge in Texas ruled in December 2018. But legal experts say that’s not the most likely outcome of this case.

First, the court may avoid deciding the case on its merits entirely by ruling that the plaintiffs do not have “standing” to sue. The central issue in the case is whether the requirement in the law to have insurance – which remains even though Congress eliminated the penalty or tax – is constitutional. But states are not subject to the so-called individual mandate, so some analysts suggest the Republican officials have no standing. In addition, questions have been raised about the individual plaintiffs in the case, two consultants from Texas who argue that they felt compelled to buy insurance even without a possible penalty.

The court could also rule that, by eliminating the penalty but not the rest of the mandate (which Congress could not do in that 2017 tax bill for procedural reasons), lawmakers “didn’t mean to coerce anyone to do anything, and so there’s no constitutional problem,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said in a recent webinar for the NIHCM Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the University of Southern California’s Center for Health Journalism.

Or, said Bagley, the court could rule that, without the tax, the requirement to have health insurance is unconstitutional, but the rest of the law is not. In that case, the justices might strike the mandate only, which would have basically no impact.

It gets more complicated if the court decides that, as the plaintiffs argue, the individual mandate language without the penalty is unconstitutional and so closely tied to other parts of the law that some of them must fall as well.

Even there the court has choices. One option would be, as the Trump administration originally argued, to strike down the mandate and just the pieces of the law most closely related to it – which happen to include the insurance protections for people with preexisting conditions, an extremely popular provision of the law. The two parts are connected because the original purpose of the mandate was to make sure enough healthy people sign up for insurance to offset the added costs to insurers of sicker people.

Another option, of course, would be for the court to follow the lead of the Texas judge and strike down the entire law.

While that’s not the most likely outcome, said Bagley, if it happens it could be “a hot mess” for the nation’s entire health care system. As just one example, he said, “every hospital is getting paid pursuant to changes made by the ACA. How do you even go about making payments if the thing that you are looking to guide what those payments ought to be is itself invalid?”
 

What impact will new Justice Amy Coney Barrett have?

Perhaps a lot. Before the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, most court observers thought the case was highly unlikely to result in the entire law being struck down. That’s because Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the law in 2012, and again when it was challenged in a less sweeping way in 2015.

But with Barrett replacing Ginsburg, even if Roberts joined the court’s remaining three liberals they could still be outvoted by the other five conservatives. Barrett was coy about her views on the Affordable Care Act during her confirmation hearings in October, but she has written that she thinks Roberts was wrong to uphold the law in 2012.
 

Could a new president and Congress make the case go away?

Many have suggested that, if Joe Biden assumes the presidency, his Justice Department could simply drop the case. But the administration did not bring the case; the GOP state officials did. And while normally the Justice Department’s job is to defend existing laws in court, in this case the ACA is being defended by a group of Democratic state attorneys general. A new administration could change that position, but that’s not the same as dropping the case.

Congress, on the other hand, could easily make the case moot. It could add back even a nominal financial penalty for not having insurance. It could eliminate the mandate altogether, although that would require 60 votes in the Senate under current rules. Congress could also pass a “severability” provision saying that, if any portion of the law is struck down, the rest should remain.

“The problem is not technical,” said Bagley. “It’s political.”
 

What is the timeline for a decision? Could the court delay implementation of its ruling?

The court usually hears oral arguments in a case months before it issues a decision. Unless the decision is unanimous or turns out to be very simple, Bagley said, he would expect to see an opinion “sometime in the spring.”

As to whether the court could find some or all of the law unconstitutional but delay when its decision takes effect, Bagley said that happened from time to time as recently as the 1970s. “That practice has been more or less abandoned,” he said, but in the case of a law so large, “you could imagine the Supreme Court using its discretion to say the decision wouldn’t take effect immediately.”

If the court does invalidate the entire ACA, Congress could act to fix things, but it’s unclear if it will be able to, especially if Republicans still control the Senate. If the justices strike the law, Bagley said, “I honestly think the likeliest outcome is that Congress runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, doesn’t come to a deal, and we’re back to where we were before 2010” when the ACA passed.

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Key clinical point: Fingolimod is superior to glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rates for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and 0.5 mg is the optimal dose.

Major finding: Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs. glatiramer acetate treatment showed a 40.7% relative reduction in annualized relapse rate (P = .01). No statistically significant difference was seen with fingolimod 0.25 mg vs. glatiramer acetate (14.6% reduction in annualized relapse rate; P = .42).

Study details: Phase 3b ASSESS trial: Patients with RRMS were randomly assigned to fingolimod 0.5 mg (n = 352), fingolimod 0.25 mg (n = 370), or to glatiramer acetate 20 mg (n = 342) groups for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Cree BAC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2950

Key clinical point: Fingolimod is superior to glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rates for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and 0.5 mg is the optimal dose.

Major finding: Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs. glatiramer acetate treatment showed a 40.7% relative reduction in annualized relapse rate (P = .01). No statistically significant difference was seen with fingolimod 0.25 mg vs. glatiramer acetate (14.6% reduction in annualized relapse rate; P = .42).

Study details: Phase 3b ASSESS trial: Patients with RRMS were randomly assigned to fingolimod 0.5 mg (n = 352), fingolimod 0.25 mg (n = 370), or to glatiramer acetate 20 mg (n = 342) groups for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Cree BAC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2950

Key clinical point: Fingolimod is superior to glatiramer acetate in reducing the relapse rates for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), and 0.5 mg is the optimal dose.

Major finding: Fingolimod 0.5 mg vs. glatiramer acetate treatment showed a 40.7% relative reduction in annualized relapse rate (P = .01). No statistically significant difference was seen with fingolimod 0.25 mg vs. glatiramer acetate (14.6% reduction in annualized relapse rate; P = .42).

Study details: Phase 3b ASSESS trial: Patients with RRMS were randomly assigned to fingolimod 0.5 mg (n = 352), fingolimod 0.25 mg (n = 370), or to glatiramer acetate 20 mg (n = 342) groups for 12 months.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. The authors reported ties with various pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

Citation: Cree BAC et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Aug 24. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2950

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that the risk for cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is less than the general population.

Major finding: The pooled relative risk (RR) of developing cancer was estimated as 0.83 (P less than .001), which shows that risk for cancer was 17% less in patients with MS than the general population. The RR of developing cancer in MS individuals differed between studies ranging from 0.7 to 1.67.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies.

Disclosures: The study received no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Ghajarzadeh M et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102650.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that the risk for cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is less than the general population.

Major finding: The pooled relative risk (RR) of developing cancer was estimated as 0.83 (P less than .001), which shows that risk for cancer was 17% less in patients with MS than the general population. The RR of developing cancer in MS individuals differed between studies ranging from 0.7 to 1.67.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies.

Disclosures: The study received no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Ghajarzadeh M et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102650.

Key clinical point: This meta-analysis suggests that the risk for cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) is less than the general population.

Major finding: The pooled relative risk (RR) of developing cancer was estimated as 0.83 (P less than .001), which shows that risk for cancer was 17% less in patients with MS than the general population. The RR of developing cancer in MS individuals differed between studies ranging from 0.7 to 1.67.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies.

Disclosures: The study received no funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Citation: Ghajarzadeh M et al. Autoimmun Rev. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102650.

Key clinical point: Cladribine tablets had lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) vs. interferon, glatiramer acetate, and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the first 2 years; a similar ARR vs. fingolimod; and a higher ARR vs. natalizumab.

Major finding: Cladribine demonstrated significantly lower ARR vs. interferon (relapse ratio [RR], 0.48; P less than .001), glatiramer acetate (RR, 0.49; P less than .001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR, 0.6; P = .001). No significant differences in ARR were observed when compared with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; P = .24), whereas higher ARR was observed vs. natalizumab (RR, 2.13; P = .014).

Study details: This study compared the efficacy of cladribine vs. other approved drugs in patients with RRMS by matching randomized controlled trial (CLARITY trial; cladribine tablets vs. placebo; n = 945) to observational data (Italian multicenter database i-MuST; n = 2,204).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Signori had no disclosures. Dr. Visconti is an employee at Merck Serono, Italy, and Dr. Sormani received consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Merck KGaA.

Citation: Signori A et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000878.

Key clinical point: Cladribine tablets had lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) vs. interferon, glatiramer acetate, and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the first 2 years; a similar ARR vs. fingolimod; and a higher ARR vs. natalizumab.

Major finding: Cladribine demonstrated significantly lower ARR vs. interferon (relapse ratio [RR], 0.48; P less than .001), glatiramer acetate (RR, 0.49; P less than .001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR, 0.6; P = .001). No significant differences in ARR were observed when compared with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; P = .24), whereas higher ARR was observed vs. natalizumab (RR, 2.13; P = .014).

Study details: This study compared the efficacy of cladribine vs. other approved drugs in patients with RRMS by matching randomized controlled trial (CLARITY trial; cladribine tablets vs. placebo; n = 945) to observational data (Italian multicenter database i-MuST; n = 2,204).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Signori had no disclosures. Dr. Visconti is an employee at Merck Serono, Italy, and Dr. Sormani received consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Merck KGaA.

Citation: Signori A et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000878.

Key clinical point: Cladribine tablets had lower annualized relapse rate (ARR) vs. interferon, glatiramer acetate, and dimethyl fumarate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the first 2 years; a similar ARR vs. fingolimod; and a higher ARR vs. natalizumab.

Major finding: Cladribine demonstrated significantly lower ARR vs. interferon (relapse ratio [RR], 0.48; P less than .001), glatiramer acetate (RR, 0.49; P less than .001), and dimethyl fumarate (RR, 0.6; P = .001). No significant differences in ARR were observed when compared with fingolimod (RR = 0.74; P = .24), whereas higher ARR was observed vs. natalizumab (RR, 2.13; P = .014).

Study details: This study compared the efficacy of cladribine vs. other approved drugs in patients with RRMS by matching randomized controlled trial (CLARITY trial; cladribine tablets vs. placebo; n = 945) to observational data (Italian multicenter database i-MuST; n = 2,204).

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Merck Serono S.p.A., Rome, Italy; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Dr. Signori had no disclosures. Dr. Visconti is an employee at Merck Serono, Italy, and Dr. Sormani received consulting fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Merck KGaA.

Citation: Signori A et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm. 2020 Aug 14. doi: 10.1212/NXI.0000000000000878.

Key clinical point: Pregnancy and childbirth seem to delay the onset of multiple sclerosis by more than 3 years. However, having more pregnancies is not associated with later onset.

Major finding: Onset of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) was later in women with previous pregnancies and childbirths vs. those without pregnancies and childbirths (hazard ratio, 0.68; P less than .001), with a median delay of 3.3 years. No association was seen between higher number of pregnancies and childbirths and delay in CIS onset.

Study details: The findings are based on a multicenter cohort study of 2,557 women with CIS (mean age at CIS onset, 31.5 years) from the MSBase Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a postgraduate scholarship and Ian Ballard Travel Award from MS Research Australia, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The lead author reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Genzyme-Sanofi outside the submitted work.

Citation: Nguyen AL et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3324.

Key clinical point: Pregnancy and childbirth seem to delay the onset of multiple sclerosis by more than 3 years. However, having more pregnancies is not associated with later onset.

Major finding: Onset of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) was later in women with previous pregnancies and childbirths vs. those without pregnancies and childbirths (hazard ratio, 0.68; P less than .001), with a median delay of 3.3 years. No association was seen between higher number of pregnancies and childbirths and delay in CIS onset.

Study details: The findings are based on a multicenter cohort study of 2,557 women with CIS (mean age at CIS onset, 31.5 years) from the MSBase Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a postgraduate scholarship and Ian Ballard Travel Award from MS Research Australia, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The lead author reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Genzyme-Sanofi outside the submitted work.

Citation: Nguyen AL et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3324.

Key clinical point: Pregnancy and childbirth seem to delay the onset of multiple sclerosis by more than 3 years. However, having more pregnancies is not associated with later onset.

Major finding: Onset of clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) was later in women with previous pregnancies and childbirths vs. those without pregnancies and childbirths (hazard ratio, 0.68; P less than .001), with a median delay of 3.3 years. No association was seen between higher number of pregnancies and childbirths and delay in CIS onset.

Study details: The findings are based on a multicenter cohort study of 2,557 women with CIS (mean age at CIS onset, 31.5 years) from the MSBase Registry.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a postgraduate scholarship and Ian Ballard Travel Award from MS Research Australia, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, and a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The lead author reported receiving grants from MS Research Australia during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Biogen; grants and personal fees from Merck Serono; personal fees from Teva and Novartis; and nonfinancial support from Roche and Genzyme-Sanofi outside the submitted work.

Citation: Nguyen AL et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Sep 14. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.3324.

Osteoporosis is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in men before and even after they have experienced a fracture, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is an important public health concern,” as fractures contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Men are often overlooked, he said, “because it’s misconstrued as a disease that mainly, if not only, affects Caucasian women,” despite the fact that 20%-25% of fractures occur in men.

Emerging evidence suggests that men who have bone fractures have worse outcomes than women, Dr. Curtis said.
 

Guidelines lacking

Consistent guidelines for osteoporosis screening among men are also lacking, leading to ambiguity and increased disease burden.

Researchers studied records for a 5% random sample of male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 9,876) aged at least 65 years with a closed fragility fracture between January 2010 and September 2014. Average age for the men with fractures was 77.9 years, and the most common sites of the fracture were the spine, hip, and ankle.

They looked back to see whether these men had been effectively screened and treated.

Very few had.

“We found that 92.8% of them did not have any diagnosis or treatment of osteoporosis at baseline,” Curtis said. On top of that, less than 6% of men had undergone any dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or bone mineral testing in the 2 years prior to their fracture.

Even men who had high-risk factors for falls, such as those using beta-blockers, mobility impairment, or a history of opioid use, were unlikely to be screened, he said.

Dr. Curtis’s data show there was actually a decline in DEXA scans from 2012 to 2014, and that decline was particularly high in men aged 75 years and older who are more likely to be at risk for fracture.

In addition to underscreening and undertreating before the fracture, Dr. Curtis said, “The treatment patterns after the fracture were not much better.” In the year after the fracture, “only about 10% of these men had BMD [bone mineral density] testing. Only 9% were treated with an osteoporosis medication.”

“Importantly, about 7% of the men in this large cohort went on to have one or more fractures in the next year,” he added.

Reasons for undertreatment

Reasons for the poor rates of diagnosis and treatment may begin with patients not having symptoms. Therefore, they aren’t coming into doctors’ offices asking to be screened. “Even if they break bones, they may not know enough to ask how to prevent the next fracture,” Dr. Curtis said.

There’s a financial obstacle as well, Dr. Curtis explained. “U.S. legislation that provides population screening for Medicare patients really, for men, is quite dissimilar to the near-universal coverage for women. So many clinicians worry they won’t get reimbursed if they order DEXA in men for screening.”

Additionally, postfracture quality-of-care guidelines that are reimbursed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System program specifically exclude men, he noted.

Better management of male osteoporosis, including early identification of at-risk individuals is clearly warranted, he said, so they can be screened and put on effective therapy.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist with Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not part of the research, agreed.

She said in an interview that part of the problem is that diagnosis and treatment could come from a variety of specialists – endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedists, and primary care physicians – and each may think it falls in another’s realm.

At Rush and some other sites nationally, she said, an alert is registered in electronic medical records flagging any patient who may need bone density screening based on age, medications, or history.

Rush University also has a fracture liaison service under which everyone hospitalized there who may have had a history of a fracture or is admitted with a fracture gets followed up with screening and treatment, “to capture those patients who may not have come through the system otherwise.”

She said guidelines have called for DEXA screening for men at age 70, but she said clinical screening should start younger – as young as 50 – for patients with conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogonadism, or those on chronic steroids.

Dr. Khandelwal said that, even when an insurance company doesn›t typically cover bone density screening for men, physicians can often make a case for reimbursement if the patient has a history of falls or fractures.

“In the long run, preventing a fracture is saving so much more money than when you get a fracture and end up in a hospital and have to go to a nursing home,” she said.

Dr. Curtis reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Gilead Sciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Khandelwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Osteoporosis is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in men before and even after they have experienced a fracture, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is an important public health concern,” as fractures contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Men are often overlooked, he said, “because it’s misconstrued as a disease that mainly, if not only, affects Caucasian women,” despite the fact that 20%-25% of fractures occur in men.

Emerging evidence suggests that men who have bone fractures have worse outcomes than women, Dr. Curtis said.
 

Guidelines lacking

Consistent guidelines for osteoporosis screening among men are also lacking, leading to ambiguity and increased disease burden.

Researchers studied records for a 5% random sample of male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 9,876) aged at least 65 years with a closed fragility fracture between January 2010 and September 2014. Average age for the men with fractures was 77.9 years, and the most common sites of the fracture were the spine, hip, and ankle.

They looked back to see whether these men had been effectively screened and treated.

Very few had.

“We found that 92.8% of them did not have any diagnosis or treatment of osteoporosis at baseline,” Curtis said. On top of that, less than 6% of men had undergone any dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or bone mineral testing in the 2 years prior to their fracture.

Even men who had high-risk factors for falls, such as those using beta-blockers, mobility impairment, or a history of opioid use, were unlikely to be screened, he said.

Dr. Curtis’s data show there was actually a decline in DEXA scans from 2012 to 2014, and that decline was particularly high in men aged 75 years and older who are more likely to be at risk for fracture.

In addition to underscreening and undertreating before the fracture, Dr. Curtis said, “The treatment patterns after the fracture were not much better.” In the year after the fracture, “only about 10% of these men had BMD [bone mineral density] testing. Only 9% were treated with an osteoporosis medication.”

“Importantly, about 7% of the men in this large cohort went on to have one or more fractures in the next year,” he added.

Reasons for undertreatment

Reasons for the poor rates of diagnosis and treatment may begin with patients not having symptoms. Therefore, they aren’t coming into doctors’ offices asking to be screened. “Even if they break bones, they may not know enough to ask how to prevent the next fracture,” Dr. Curtis said.

There’s a financial obstacle as well, Dr. Curtis explained. “U.S. legislation that provides population screening for Medicare patients really, for men, is quite dissimilar to the near-universal coverage for women. So many clinicians worry they won’t get reimbursed if they order DEXA in men for screening.”

Additionally, postfracture quality-of-care guidelines that are reimbursed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System program specifically exclude men, he noted.

Better management of male osteoporosis, including early identification of at-risk individuals is clearly warranted, he said, so they can be screened and put on effective therapy.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist with Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not part of the research, agreed.

She said in an interview that part of the problem is that diagnosis and treatment could come from a variety of specialists – endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedists, and primary care physicians – and each may think it falls in another’s realm.

At Rush and some other sites nationally, she said, an alert is registered in electronic medical records flagging any patient who may need bone density screening based on age, medications, or history.

Rush University also has a fracture liaison service under which everyone hospitalized there who may have had a history of a fracture or is admitted with a fracture gets followed up with screening and treatment, “to capture those patients who may not have come through the system otherwise.”

She said guidelines have called for DEXA screening for men at age 70, but she said clinical screening should start younger – as young as 50 – for patients with conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogonadism, or those on chronic steroids.

Dr. Khandelwal said that, even when an insurance company doesn›t typically cover bone density screening for men, physicians can often make a case for reimbursement if the patient has a history of falls or fractures.

“In the long run, preventing a fracture is saving so much more money than when you get a fracture and end up in a hospital and have to go to a nursing home,” she said.

Dr. Curtis reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Gilead Sciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Khandelwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Osteoporosis is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in men before and even after they have experienced a fracture, according to research presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is an important public health concern,” as fractures contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality, said Jeffrey Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Men are often overlooked, he said, “because it’s misconstrued as a disease that mainly, if not only, affects Caucasian women,” despite the fact that 20%-25% of fractures occur in men.

Emerging evidence suggests that men who have bone fractures have worse outcomes than women, Dr. Curtis said.
 

Guidelines lacking

Consistent guidelines for osteoporosis screening among men are also lacking, leading to ambiguity and increased disease burden.

Researchers studied records for a 5% random sample of male Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (n = 9,876) aged at least 65 years with a closed fragility fracture between January 2010 and September 2014. Average age for the men with fractures was 77.9 years, and the most common sites of the fracture were the spine, hip, and ankle.

They looked back to see whether these men had been effectively screened and treated.

Very few had.

“We found that 92.8% of them did not have any diagnosis or treatment of osteoporosis at baseline,” Curtis said. On top of that, less than 6% of men had undergone any dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) or bone mineral testing in the 2 years prior to their fracture.

Even men who had high-risk factors for falls, such as those using beta-blockers, mobility impairment, or a history of opioid use, were unlikely to be screened, he said.

Dr. Curtis’s data show there was actually a decline in DEXA scans from 2012 to 2014, and that decline was particularly high in men aged 75 years and older who are more likely to be at risk for fracture.

In addition to underscreening and undertreating before the fracture, Dr. Curtis said, “The treatment patterns after the fracture were not much better.” In the year after the fracture, “only about 10% of these men had BMD [bone mineral density] testing. Only 9% were treated with an osteoporosis medication.”

“Importantly, about 7% of the men in this large cohort went on to have one or more fractures in the next year,” he added.

Reasons for undertreatment

Reasons for the poor rates of diagnosis and treatment may begin with patients not having symptoms. Therefore, they aren’t coming into doctors’ offices asking to be screened. “Even if they break bones, they may not know enough to ask how to prevent the next fracture,” Dr. Curtis said.

There’s a financial obstacle as well, Dr. Curtis explained. “U.S. legislation that provides population screening for Medicare patients really, for men, is quite dissimilar to the near-universal coverage for women. So many clinicians worry they won’t get reimbursed if they order DEXA in men for screening.”

Additionally, postfracture quality-of-care guidelines that are reimbursed as part of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System program specifically exclude men, he noted.

Better management of male osteoporosis, including early identification of at-risk individuals is clearly warranted, he said, so they can be screened and put on effective therapy.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, a rheumatologist with Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, who was not part of the research, agreed.

She said in an interview that part of the problem is that diagnosis and treatment could come from a variety of specialists – endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedists, and primary care physicians – and each may think it falls in another’s realm.

At Rush and some other sites nationally, she said, an alert is registered in electronic medical records flagging any patient who may need bone density screening based on age, medications, or history.

Rush University also has a fracture liaison service under which everyone hospitalized there who may have had a history of a fracture or is admitted with a fracture gets followed up with screening and treatment, “to capture those patients who may not have come through the system otherwise.”

She said guidelines have called for DEXA screening for men at age 70, but she said clinical screening should start younger – as young as 50 – for patients with conditions such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypogonadism, or those on chronic steroids.

Dr. Khandelwal said that, even when an insurance company doesn›t typically cover bone density screening for men, physicians can often make a case for reimbursement if the patient has a history of falls or fractures.

“In the long run, preventing a fracture is saving so much more money than when you get a fracture and end up in a hospital and have to go to a nursing home,” she said.

Dr. Curtis reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, UCB, Gilead Sciences, and Sanofi. Dr. Khandelwal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Timing is everything when it comes to the use of the anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity) for the treatment of advanced osteoporosis, a review of clinical trials suggests.

In four studies with treatment sequences in which romosozumab was administered either before or following the use of an antiresorptive agent, initial treatment with 1 year of romosozumab produced substantial bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the total hip and lumbar spine.

Transition from romosozumab to a potent resorptive agent, either alendronate or denosumab (Prolia) augmented the initial gains, reported Felicia Cosman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, New York.

Romosozumab was the third approved agent in its class, following teriparatide in 2002, and abaloparatide (Tymlos) in 2017, both of which have been shown to produce rapid reductions in fracture risk and large improvements in BMD when they were administered up front, followed by an antiresorptive agent.

“But since romosozumab has a very different mechanism of action compared to both teriparatide and abaloparatide, we didn’t know if treatment sequence would be as important for this agent as it was for teriparatide,” she said during a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Two-for-one

Romosozumab is unique in that it both increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption, and has been shown in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to significantly improve BMD and reduce fracture risk, compared with either placebo or alendronate. Romosozumab has also been studied as sequential therapy in patients treated initially with either alendronate or denosumab.

To see whether treatment sequence could have differential effects on clinical outcomes for patients with osteoporosis, Dr. Cosman and colleagues looked at results from four clinical trials, using levels of bone turnover markers (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP] and beta-isomer of the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [beta-CTX]) and BMD gains in the total hip and spine as outcomes.

The two trials of romosozumab in treatment-naive women were the ARCH trial comparing romosozumab with alendronate in a double-blind phase for 1 year, followed by 1 year of open-label alendronate, and the FRAME trial, in which romosozumab was compared with placebo in a 1-year double-blind phase, followed by 1-year of open-label denosumab.

The two trials of romosozumab in women treated initially with antiresorptive agents were the STRUCTURE trial in which patients on oral bisphosphonates for at least 3 years or alendronate 70 mg weekly for 1 year were randomized to receive either romosozumab or teriparatide, and a phase 2 trial (NCT00896532) that included a 24-month romosozumab or placebo treatment phase followed by rerandomization to a 12-month extension phase with denosumab or placebo, followed by a 12-month retreatment phase with romosozumab, followed by a 24-month follow-on phase with zoledronic acid or no intervention.

Total hip BMD gains

In the ARCH trial, total hip BMD increased 6.2% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a cumulative total of 7.1% with the 2-year romosozumab/alendronate sequence. In the FRAME trial, patients gained 6.8% in total hip BMD after 1 year of romosozumab and a total of 8.8% after 2 years of romosozumab followed by denosumab.

In contrast, in the STRUCTURE trial, patients treated for 1 year or longer with alendronate and then with 1 year of romosozumab had a 2.9% BMD gain in the total hip. In the phase 2 trial, 1 year of romosozumab following 1 year of denosumab yielded a 0.9% BMD gain, for a total gain of 3.8% with the denosumab sequence.
 

Lumbar spine BMD gains

In ARCH, lumbar spine BMD increased 13.7% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a total of 15.2% with the 2-year sequence of romosozumab followed by alendronate. Similarly, in FRAME, patients gained 13.3% in BMD after a year of romosozumab, and total of 17.6% by the end of the 2-year romosozumab/denosumab sequence.

In contrast, in STRUCTURE, patients who had previously been on alendronate for at least 1 year had a gain of 9.8% after 1 year of romosozumab, and in the phase 2 study, patients who had been on denosumab for 1 year had an increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.3% after 1 year on romosozumab, and a total gain of 11.5% at the end of the 2-year sequence.
 

Serum PINP and beta-CTX

Looking at the markers of bone turnover, the investigators saw that, in both ARCH and FRAME, PINP peaked at over 80% of baseline at 1 month, and then continued to steadily decline past 1 year. The beta-CTX nadir was 40%-50% below baseline at 1 year.

At the end of year 2, the PINP nadir was –67% with follow-on alendronate, and –69% with denosumab, and the beta-CTX nadir was –72% and –92%, respectively.

In the two trials where romosozumab was the follow-on therapy, however, the trends were distinctly different. In STRUCTURE, for example, PINP peaked at 141% of baseline at 1 month, and then returned toward baseline, whereas beta-CTX remained largely unchanged.

In the phase 2 trial, PINP peaked at 28% above baseline at 9 months, and then only slightly declined, and beta-CTX peaked at 211% at the end of 1 year of romosozumab.

Best used up front

“This study is important, because it suggests that for the three bone-building drugs that the best effects will really be attained on bone strength if the agents are used as initial therapy in very-high-risk patients. Those are people who have sustained fractures within the preceding 2 years, who had multiple fractures at any point in their adulthood, and who present with very low BMD, particularly if they have any associated clinical risk factors such as family history or other underlying diseases or medications that have detrimental effects on bone,” Dr. Cosman said at the briefing.

Marcy Bolster, MD, from the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that the study provides important information for clinicians who treat patients with osteoporosis.

“We have an increasing number of medications available for use in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis, and as we consider the importance of reducing fracture risk, the duration of therapy, the timing of a bisphosphonate holiday, it is essential that we consider any advantages to the order or sequence of our medications,” she said when asked for comment.

“This study provides evidence supporting the concept of the ‘anabolic window’ in which there is a demonstrated advantage in treating patients with an anabolic agent prior to treatment with an antiresorptive agent, and while gains in bone mineral density were achieved with either order of medication use, the gains were more dramatic with treatment with romosozumab as the first agent,” she added.

Dr. Bolster also noted it will be important to demonstrate reduction in fracture risk as well as gain in BMD.

The study was sponsored by Amgen, Astellas, and UCB. Dr. Cosman disclosed grants/research support from Amgen, and consulting fees and speaker activities for Amgen and Radius Health. Dr. Bolster disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Corbus, Cumberland, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1973.

Timing is everything when it comes to the use of the anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity) for the treatment of advanced osteoporosis, a review of clinical trials suggests.

In four studies with treatment sequences in which romosozumab was administered either before or following the use of an antiresorptive agent, initial treatment with 1 year of romosozumab produced substantial bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the total hip and lumbar spine.

Transition from romosozumab to a potent resorptive agent, either alendronate or denosumab (Prolia) augmented the initial gains, reported Felicia Cosman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, New York.

Romosozumab was the third approved agent in its class, following teriparatide in 2002, and abaloparatide (Tymlos) in 2017, both of which have been shown to produce rapid reductions in fracture risk and large improvements in BMD when they were administered up front, followed by an antiresorptive agent.

“But since romosozumab has a very different mechanism of action compared to both teriparatide and abaloparatide, we didn’t know if treatment sequence would be as important for this agent as it was for teriparatide,” she said during a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Two-for-one

Romosozumab is unique in that it both increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption, and has been shown in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to significantly improve BMD and reduce fracture risk, compared with either placebo or alendronate. Romosozumab has also been studied as sequential therapy in patients treated initially with either alendronate or denosumab.

To see whether treatment sequence could have differential effects on clinical outcomes for patients with osteoporosis, Dr. Cosman and colleagues looked at results from four clinical trials, using levels of bone turnover markers (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP] and beta-isomer of the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [beta-CTX]) and BMD gains in the total hip and spine as outcomes.

The two trials of romosozumab in treatment-naive women were the ARCH trial comparing romosozumab with alendronate in a double-blind phase for 1 year, followed by 1 year of open-label alendronate, and the FRAME trial, in which romosozumab was compared with placebo in a 1-year double-blind phase, followed by 1-year of open-label denosumab.

The two trials of romosozumab in women treated initially with antiresorptive agents were the STRUCTURE trial in which patients on oral bisphosphonates for at least 3 years or alendronate 70 mg weekly for 1 year were randomized to receive either romosozumab or teriparatide, and a phase 2 trial (NCT00896532) that included a 24-month romosozumab or placebo treatment phase followed by rerandomization to a 12-month extension phase with denosumab or placebo, followed by a 12-month retreatment phase with romosozumab, followed by a 24-month follow-on phase with zoledronic acid or no intervention.

Total hip BMD gains

In the ARCH trial, total hip BMD increased 6.2% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a cumulative total of 7.1% with the 2-year romosozumab/alendronate sequence. In the FRAME trial, patients gained 6.8% in total hip BMD after 1 year of romosozumab and a total of 8.8% after 2 years of romosozumab followed by denosumab.

In contrast, in the STRUCTURE trial, patients treated for 1 year or longer with alendronate and then with 1 year of romosozumab had a 2.9% BMD gain in the total hip. In the phase 2 trial, 1 year of romosozumab following 1 year of denosumab yielded a 0.9% BMD gain, for a total gain of 3.8% with the denosumab sequence.
 

Lumbar spine BMD gains

In ARCH, lumbar spine BMD increased 13.7% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a total of 15.2% with the 2-year sequence of romosozumab followed by alendronate. Similarly, in FRAME, patients gained 13.3% in BMD after a year of romosozumab, and total of 17.6% by the end of the 2-year romosozumab/denosumab sequence.

In contrast, in STRUCTURE, patients who had previously been on alendronate for at least 1 year had a gain of 9.8% after 1 year of romosozumab, and in the phase 2 study, patients who had been on denosumab for 1 year had an increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.3% after 1 year on romosozumab, and a total gain of 11.5% at the end of the 2-year sequence.
 

Serum PINP and beta-CTX

Looking at the markers of bone turnover, the investigators saw that, in both ARCH and FRAME, PINP peaked at over 80% of baseline at 1 month, and then continued to steadily decline past 1 year. The beta-CTX nadir was 40%-50% below baseline at 1 year.

At the end of year 2, the PINP nadir was –67% with follow-on alendronate, and –69% with denosumab, and the beta-CTX nadir was –72% and –92%, respectively.

In the two trials where romosozumab was the follow-on therapy, however, the trends were distinctly different. In STRUCTURE, for example, PINP peaked at 141% of baseline at 1 month, and then returned toward baseline, whereas beta-CTX remained largely unchanged.

In the phase 2 trial, PINP peaked at 28% above baseline at 9 months, and then only slightly declined, and beta-CTX peaked at 211% at the end of 1 year of romosozumab.

Best used up front

“This study is important, because it suggests that for the three bone-building drugs that the best effects will really be attained on bone strength if the agents are used as initial therapy in very-high-risk patients. Those are people who have sustained fractures within the preceding 2 years, who had multiple fractures at any point in their adulthood, and who present with very low BMD, particularly if they have any associated clinical risk factors such as family history or other underlying diseases or medications that have detrimental effects on bone,” Dr. Cosman said at the briefing.

Marcy Bolster, MD, from the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that the study provides important information for clinicians who treat patients with osteoporosis.

“We have an increasing number of medications available for use in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis, and as we consider the importance of reducing fracture risk, the duration of therapy, the timing of a bisphosphonate holiday, it is essential that we consider any advantages to the order or sequence of our medications,” she said when asked for comment.

“This study provides evidence supporting the concept of the ‘anabolic window’ in which there is a demonstrated advantage in treating patients with an anabolic agent prior to treatment with an antiresorptive agent, and while gains in bone mineral density were achieved with either order of medication use, the gains were more dramatic with treatment with romosozumab as the first agent,” she added.

Dr. Bolster also noted it will be important to demonstrate reduction in fracture risk as well as gain in BMD.

The study was sponsored by Amgen, Astellas, and UCB. Dr. Cosman disclosed grants/research support from Amgen, and consulting fees and speaker activities for Amgen and Radius Health. Dr. Bolster disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Corbus, Cumberland, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1973.

Timing is everything when it comes to the use of the anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity) for the treatment of advanced osteoporosis, a review of clinical trials suggests.

In four studies with treatment sequences in which romosozumab was administered either before or following the use of an antiresorptive agent, initial treatment with 1 year of romosozumab produced substantial bone mineral density (BMD) gains in the total hip and lumbar spine.

Transition from romosozumab to a potent resorptive agent, either alendronate or denosumab (Prolia) augmented the initial gains, reported Felicia Cosman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Columbia University, New York.

Romosozumab was the third approved agent in its class, following teriparatide in 2002, and abaloparatide (Tymlos) in 2017, both of which have been shown to produce rapid reductions in fracture risk and large improvements in BMD when they were administered up front, followed by an antiresorptive agent.

“But since romosozumab has a very different mechanism of action compared to both teriparatide and abaloparatide, we didn’t know if treatment sequence would be as important for this agent as it was for teriparatide,” she said during a press briefing prior to her presentation of the data in an oral abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Two-for-one

Romosozumab is unique in that it both increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption, and has been shown in treatment-naive postmenopausal women with osteoporosis to significantly improve BMD and reduce fracture risk, compared with either placebo or alendronate. Romosozumab has also been studied as sequential therapy in patients treated initially with either alendronate or denosumab.

To see whether treatment sequence could have differential effects on clinical outcomes for patients with osteoporosis, Dr. Cosman and colleagues looked at results from four clinical trials, using levels of bone turnover markers (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [PINP] and beta-isomer of the C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen [beta-CTX]) and BMD gains in the total hip and spine as outcomes.

The two trials of romosozumab in treatment-naive women were the ARCH trial comparing romosozumab with alendronate in a double-blind phase for 1 year, followed by 1 year of open-label alendronate, and the FRAME trial, in which romosozumab was compared with placebo in a 1-year double-blind phase, followed by 1-year of open-label denosumab.

The two trials of romosozumab in women treated initially with antiresorptive agents were the STRUCTURE trial in which patients on oral bisphosphonates for at least 3 years or alendronate 70 mg weekly for 1 year were randomized to receive either romosozumab or teriparatide, and a phase 2 trial (NCT00896532) that included a 24-month romosozumab or placebo treatment phase followed by rerandomization to a 12-month extension phase with denosumab or placebo, followed by a 12-month retreatment phase with romosozumab, followed by a 24-month follow-on phase with zoledronic acid or no intervention.

Total hip BMD gains

In the ARCH trial, total hip BMD increased 6.2% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a cumulative total of 7.1% with the 2-year romosozumab/alendronate sequence. In the FRAME trial, patients gained 6.8% in total hip BMD after 1 year of romosozumab and a total of 8.8% after 2 years of romosozumab followed by denosumab.

In contrast, in the STRUCTURE trial, patients treated for 1 year or longer with alendronate and then with 1 year of romosozumab had a 2.9% BMD gain in the total hip. In the phase 2 trial, 1 year of romosozumab following 1 year of denosumab yielded a 0.9% BMD gain, for a total gain of 3.8% with the denosumab sequence.
 

Lumbar spine BMD gains

In ARCH, lumbar spine BMD increased 13.7% with 1 year of romosozumab, and a total of 15.2% with the 2-year sequence of romosozumab followed by alendronate. Similarly, in FRAME, patients gained 13.3% in BMD after a year of romosozumab, and total of 17.6% by the end of the 2-year romosozumab/denosumab sequence.

In contrast, in STRUCTURE, patients who had previously been on alendronate for at least 1 year had a gain of 9.8% after 1 year of romosozumab, and in the phase 2 study, patients who had been on denosumab for 1 year had an increase in lumbar spine BMD of 5.3% after 1 year on romosozumab, and a total gain of 11.5% at the end of the 2-year sequence.
 

Serum PINP and beta-CTX

Looking at the markers of bone turnover, the investigators saw that, in both ARCH and FRAME, PINP peaked at over 80% of baseline at 1 month, and then continued to steadily decline past 1 year. The beta-CTX nadir was 40%-50% below baseline at 1 year.

At the end of year 2, the PINP nadir was –67% with follow-on alendronate, and –69% with denosumab, and the beta-CTX nadir was –72% and –92%, respectively.

In the two trials where romosozumab was the follow-on therapy, however, the trends were distinctly different. In STRUCTURE, for example, PINP peaked at 141% of baseline at 1 month, and then returned toward baseline, whereas beta-CTX remained largely unchanged.

In the phase 2 trial, PINP peaked at 28% above baseline at 9 months, and then only slightly declined, and beta-CTX peaked at 211% at the end of 1 year of romosozumab.

Best used up front

“This study is important, because it suggests that for the three bone-building drugs that the best effects will really be attained on bone strength if the agents are used as initial therapy in very-high-risk patients. Those are people who have sustained fractures within the preceding 2 years, who had multiple fractures at any point in their adulthood, and who present with very low BMD, particularly if they have any associated clinical risk factors such as family history or other underlying diseases or medications that have detrimental effects on bone,” Dr. Cosman said at the briefing.

Marcy Bolster, MD, from the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that the study provides important information for clinicians who treat patients with osteoporosis.

“We have an increasing number of medications available for use in the treatment of patients with osteoporosis, and as we consider the importance of reducing fracture risk, the duration of therapy, the timing of a bisphosphonate holiday, it is essential that we consider any advantages to the order or sequence of our medications,” she said when asked for comment.

“This study provides evidence supporting the concept of the ‘anabolic window’ in which there is a demonstrated advantage in treating patients with an anabolic agent prior to treatment with an antiresorptive agent, and while gains in bone mineral density were achieved with either order of medication use, the gains were more dramatic with treatment with romosozumab as the first agent,” she added.

Dr. Bolster also noted it will be important to demonstrate reduction in fracture risk as well as gain in BMD.

The study was sponsored by Amgen, Astellas, and UCB. Dr. Cosman disclosed grants/research support from Amgen, and consulting fees and speaker activities for Amgen and Radius Health. Dr. Bolster disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Corbus, Cumberland, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Cosman F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1973.