User login
Review estimates acne risk with JAK inhibitor therapy
TOPLINE:
, according to an analysis of 25 JAK inhibitor studies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Acne has been reported to be an adverse effect of JAK inhibitors, but not much is known about how common acne is overall and how incidence differs between different JAK inhibitors and the disease being treated.
- For the systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers identified 25 phase 2 or 3 randomized, controlled trials that reported acne as an adverse event associated with the use of JAK inhibitors.
- The study population included 10,839 participants (54% male, 46% female).
- The primary outcome was the incidence of acne following a period of JAK inhibitor use.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the risk of acne was significantly higher among those treated with JAK inhibitors in comparison with patients given placebo in a pooled analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.83).
- The risk of acne was highest with abrocitinib (OR, 13.47), followed by baricitinib (OR, 4.96), upadacitinib (OR, 4.79), deuruxolitinib (OR, 3.30), and deucravacitinib (OR, 2.64). By JAK inhibitor class, results were as follows: JAK1-specific inhibitors (OR, 4.69), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (OR, 3.43), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (OR, 2.64).
- In a subgroup analysis, risk of acne was higher among patients using JAK inhibitors for dermatologic conditions in comparison with those using JAK inhibitors for nondermatologic conditions (OR, 4.67 vs 1.18).
- Age and gender had no apparent impact on the effect of JAK inhibitor use on acne risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“The occurrence of acne following treatment with certain classes of JAK inhibitors is of potential concern, as this adverse effect may jeopardize treatment adherence among some patients,” the researchers wrote. More studies are needed “to characterize the underlying mechanism of acne with JAK inhibitor use and to identify best practices for treatment,” they added.
SOURCE:
The lead author was Jeremy Martinez, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The review was limited by the variable classification and reporting of acne across studies, the potential exclusion of relevant studies, and the small number of studies for certain drugs.
DISCLOSURES:
The studies were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Martinez disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have ties with Dexcel Pharma Technologies, AbbVie, Concert, Pfizer, 3Derm Systems, Incyte, Aclaris, Eli Lilly, Concert, Equillium, ASLAN, ACOM, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to an analysis of 25 JAK inhibitor studies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Acne has been reported to be an adverse effect of JAK inhibitors, but not much is known about how common acne is overall and how incidence differs between different JAK inhibitors and the disease being treated.
- For the systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers identified 25 phase 2 or 3 randomized, controlled trials that reported acne as an adverse event associated with the use of JAK inhibitors.
- The study population included 10,839 participants (54% male, 46% female).
- The primary outcome was the incidence of acne following a period of JAK inhibitor use.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the risk of acne was significantly higher among those treated with JAK inhibitors in comparison with patients given placebo in a pooled analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.83).
- The risk of acne was highest with abrocitinib (OR, 13.47), followed by baricitinib (OR, 4.96), upadacitinib (OR, 4.79), deuruxolitinib (OR, 3.30), and deucravacitinib (OR, 2.64). By JAK inhibitor class, results were as follows: JAK1-specific inhibitors (OR, 4.69), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (OR, 3.43), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (OR, 2.64).
- In a subgroup analysis, risk of acne was higher among patients using JAK inhibitors for dermatologic conditions in comparison with those using JAK inhibitors for nondermatologic conditions (OR, 4.67 vs 1.18).
- Age and gender had no apparent impact on the effect of JAK inhibitor use on acne risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“The occurrence of acne following treatment with certain classes of JAK inhibitors is of potential concern, as this adverse effect may jeopardize treatment adherence among some patients,” the researchers wrote. More studies are needed “to characterize the underlying mechanism of acne with JAK inhibitor use and to identify best practices for treatment,” they added.
SOURCE:
The lead author was Jeremy Martinez, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The review was limited by the variable classification and reporting of acne across studies, the potential exclusion of relevant studies, and the small number of studies for certain drugs.
DISCLOSURES:
The studies were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Martinez disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have ties with Dexcel Pharma Technologies, AbbVie, Concert, Pfizer, 3Derm Systems, Incyte, Aclaris, Eli Lilly, Concert, Equillium, ASLAN, ACOM, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to an analysis of 25 JAK inhibitor studies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Acne has been reported to be an adverse effect of JAK inhibitors, but not much is known about how common acne is overall and how incidence differs between different JAK inhibitors and the disease being treated.
- For the systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers identified 25 phase 2 or 3 randomized, controlled trials that reported acne as an adverse event associated with the use of JAK inhibitors.
- The study population included 10,839 participants (54% male, 46% female).
- The primary outcome was the incidence of acne following a period of JAK inhibitor use.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the risk of acne was significantly higher among those treated with JAK inhibitors in comparison with patients given placebo in a pooled analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.83).
- The risk of acne was highest with abrocitinib (OR, 13.47), followed by baricitinib (OR, 4.96), upadacitinib (OR, 4.79), deuruxolitinib (OR, 3.30), and deucravacitinib (OR, 2.64). By JAK inhibitor class, results were as follows: JAK1-specific inhibitors (OR, 4.69), combined JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitors (OR, 3.43), and tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors (OR, 2.64).
- In a subgroup analysis, risk of acne was higher among patients using JAK inhibitors for dermatologic conditions in comparison with those using JAK inhibitors for nondermatologic conditions (OR, 4.67 vs 1.18).
- Age and gender had no apparent impact on the effect of JAK inhibitor use on acne risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“The occurrence of acne following treatment with certain classes of JAK inhibitors is of potential concern, as this adverse effect may jeopardize treatment adherence among some patients,” the researchers wrote. More studies are needed “to characterize the underlying mechanism of acne with JAK inhibitor use and to identify best practices for treatment,” they added.
SOURCE:
The lead author was Jeremy Martinez, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The review was limited by the variable classification and reporting of acne across studies, the potential exclusion of relevant studies, and the small number of studies for certain drugs.
DISCLOSURES:
The studies were mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Mr. Martinez disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors have ties with Dexcel Pharma Technologies, AbbVie, Concert, Pfizer, 3Derm Systems, Incyte, Aclaris, Eli Lilly, Concert, Equillium, ASLAN, ACOM, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves bimekizumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults
, the manufacturer announced in a press release.
The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.
Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
Available in about 1 month in U.S.
Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.
The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.
Three phase 3 trials
Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).
“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.
Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:
- Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
- Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
- Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.
Safety information
The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.
Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the manufacturer announced in a press release.
The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.
Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
Available in about 1 month in U.S.
Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.
The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.
Three phase 3 trials
Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).
“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.
Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:
- Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
- Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
- Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.
Safety information
The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.
Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, the manufacturer announced in a press release.
The indication is for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
With this approval, bimekizumab becomes the only interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F inhibitor approved for the treatment of these patients. Psoriasis affects more than 7.5 million U.S. adults, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
“We have been eagerly awaiting bimekizumab,” Mark Lebwohl, MD, bimekizumab investigator and dean for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in the press release.
Dr. Lebwohl states that bimekizumab “achieved superior levels of skin clearance at week 16 compared to placebo and three existing biologics for psoriasis, with responses being rapid and lasting up to a year. Long-term data have also shown that the majority of patients maintained high levels of clinical response through three years.”
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in at least 1% of patients) are upper respiratory infections, oral candidiasis, headache, tinea infections, gastroenteritis, herpes simplex infections, acne, folliculitis, other Candida infections, fatigue, and injection site reactions, according to the company, UCB.
Available in about 1 month in U.S.
Bimekizumab can be administered by a health care provider or it can be self-injected by a patient after training. It is available as a single-dose prefilled autoinjector and a single-dose prefilled syringe and will be available in the United States in about 1 month.
The recommended dosage of bimekizumab for patients with psoriasis is 320 mg (two subcutaneous injections of 160 mg each) at baseline, then on weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16, then every 8 weeks thereafter. For patients weighing at least 120 kg (about 265 lb), a dosage of 320 mg every 4 weeks after week 16 may be considered, the company states.
Three phase 3 trials
Approval was based on three phase 3 multicenter, randomized, placebo and/or active comparator-controlled trials: bimekizumab versus placebo and ustekinumab (BE VIVID); versus placebo (BE READY); and versus adalimumab (BE SURE).
“All studies met their co-primary endpoints and all ranked secondary endpoints,” the company reports. Secondary endpoints included the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 at week 4 and PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) at week 16.
Highlights from the trials include the following results, according to UCB:
- Clear or almost clear skin: More than 8 out of 10 patients achieved a 90% or greater reduction from baseline in the PASI 90 and an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0/1 at week 16.
- Complete skin clearance: About 60% of patients achieved PASI 100 at week 16.
- Time to response: More than 70% of patients achieved PASI 75 at week 4 following one 320-mg dose.
Safety information
The safety information includes the statement that bimekizumab may increase the risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, though a causal association has not been established. Prescribers should advise patients, caregivers, and families “to monitor for emergence or worsening of depression, suicidal ideation, or other mood changes,” according to the prescribing information.
Bimekizumab is being studied for other conditions, including hidradenitis suppurativa. In the European Union, it was approved for the treatment of psoriasis in 2021 and for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis in June 2023.
Dr. Lebwohl is an investigator for UCB. He has not accepted any consulting payments from UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Study validates use of new psoriatic arthritis prediction tool
Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.
To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.
The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).
In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.
“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”
Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”
Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”
Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.
The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”
The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.
Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.
To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.
The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).
In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.
“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”
Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”
Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”
Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.
The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”
The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.
Though it requires further validation, researchers led by rheumatologist Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, of the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, characterized the development and validation of PRESTO as “an important first step in the development and testing of interventional strategies that may ultimately halt disease progression,” they wrote in their study of the tool, which published in Arthritis & Rheumatology. Dr. Eder presented a summary of progress on the effort at the 2023 annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.
To develop and validate the tool, the researchers evaluated 635 patients from the University of Toronto Psoriasis Cohort, which was launched in 2006 as a prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine risk factors for the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. Patients enrolled in the cohort have a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis and are assessed by a rheumatologist prior to enrollment to exclude those with inflammatory arthritis in the past or at the time of assessment.
To develop prediction models for PsA, Dr. Eder and colleagues used information from the patient cohort demographics, psoriasis characteristics, comorbidities, medications, and musculoskeletal symptoms. Next, they used multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for covariates, duration of psoriasis, and the log duration at risk to estimate the probability of developing PsA within 1-year and 5-year time windows from consecutive study visits.
The mean age of the study participants was 47 years, 76% were White, and 57% were male; and they had psoriasis for a mean of 16 years. The researchers found that 51 patients developed PsA during the 1-year follow-up, and 71 developed PsA during the 5-year follow-up. The risk of developing PsA within 1 year was associated with younger age, male sex, family history of psoriasis, back stiffness, nail pitting, joint stiffness, use of biologic medications, patient global health, and pain severity (area under the curve, 72.3).
In addition, the risk of developing PsA within 5 years was associated with morning stiffness, psoriatic nail lesions, psoriasis severity, fatigue, pain, and use of systemic non-biologic medication or phototherapy (AUC, 74.9). Calibration plots showed reasonable agreement between predicted and observed probabilities.
“Interestingly, several previously reported risk factors for PsA, such as HLA-B27, family history of PsA, uveitis, and flexural psoriasis, were not included in the risk prediction model due to their scarcity in our cohort,” the researchers wrote. “This finding may be due to immortal time bias which can complicate the development of risk prediction models for PsA. Genetic factors or their surrogates (e.g., family history of PsA) are associated with the development of PsA concurrently or shortly after the onset of psoriasis.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and questionable generalizability of the study findings, “as most of the patients were recruited from dermatology clinics leading to overrepresentation of moderate-severe psoriasis. Therefore, PRESTO will require an external validation to assess its performance in other populations of psoriasis patients with different characteristics.”
Saakshi Khattri, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, rheumatologist, and internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was not involved in the study and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the PRESTO tool as “an interesting step in the right direction, but it’s the first step.”
Since dermatologists are usually the first point of contact for psoriasis patients, she added, “a risk calculator can be helpful, but the question remains: When do we refer them to a rheumatologist? If the risk comes to 5%, is that a low risk that doesn’t need referral to rheumatology? I don’t think those questions have been answered here. From a rheumatology perspective, does the risk calculator help me decide when to intervene? At present, I’m not sure it does. Perhaps a higher score might make us intervene sooner if our clinical exam doesn’t show swollen or tender joints.”
Clinical exam findings and history she considers as a rheumatologist before making treatment recommendations include the following: Are there swollen and tender joints? Does the patient report morning stiffness for upwards of 30 minutes? Do they have enthesitis or dactylitis? Is there axial involvement? “Imaging can help if there isn’t anything on clinical exam and the history is compelling and/or the patient has risk factors for PsA,” she said.
The study’s finding of biologic use being associated with risk of developing PsA at year 1 but not at year 5 is “confusing,” Dr. Khattri added. “My concern is, will that now dissuade our moderate to severe psoriasis patients from using biologics to clear their psoriasis? We know that biologics are indicated for moderate to severe psoriasis. We also know psoriasis is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and there’s data to suggest that treatment with biologics with its resultant decrease in systemic inflammation can decrease cardiovascular risk.”
The study was supported by a New Investigator Grant from the Physician Services Incorporated Foundation. Dr. Eder disclosed that she is supported by the Canada Research Chair in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases. Dr. Khattri reported that she is a member of the advisory board for UCB, Janssen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Lilly, Argenx, and Arcutis. She has also received research funds from Incyte, AbbVie, Leo, Galderma, Pfizer, and Acelyrin.
FROM ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATOLOGY
Ustekinumab matches TNF inhibitors for psoriatic arthritis in 3-year, real-world study
The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) is nearly as effective as a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor for psoriatic arthritis, and patients are slightly more likely to persist with it and have a lower rate of adverse events, a 3-year, real-world study has found.
In a paper published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers presented the outcomes of the prospective, observational PsABio study of 895 adults with psoriatic arthritis, who were starting treatment for the first time with either ustekinumab or a TNF inhibitor as first-, second-, or third-line treatment.
At 3 years after starting therapy, 49.9% of the 439 patients prescribed ustekinumab were still on that treatment, compared with 47.8% of the 456 patients prescribed a TNF inhibitor. However, there were differences in persistence based on clinical presentation. Patients who had severe skin involvement who were treated with ustekinumab stayed on the drug for longer than did those with severe skin involvement treated with a TNF inhibitor, and they were more likely to persist with their treatment for the 3 years of the study. However, there were numerically more patients with mild or moderate skin involvement taking a TNF inhibitor who stayed persistent with the treatment, compared with those taking ustekinumab, although the differences were not statistically significant.
“In the ustekinumab group, skin response was an important reason for prolonged persistence, with more patients in the ustekinumab group stopping/switching due to lack of effectiveness,” wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and coauthors. “This is expected, as psoriasis can significantly affect morbidity, and successfully treating skin symptoms improves patients’ health-related quality of life.”
The authors also noted that patients on ustekinumab monotherapy had the highest rate of persistence and stayed on treatment longer than did those on TNF inhibitor monotherapy, or on dual therapy with either drug combined with methotrexate. They suggested this could be because patients on TNF inhibitor monotherapy may be more likely to develop antidrug antibodies than those on ustekinumab monotherapy. It could also be because adding methotrexate may increase the risk of adverse events, but without necessarily increasing the effectiveness of ustekinumab on skin involvement.
In terms of efficacy, researchers saw that 69.8% of patients in the TNF inhibitor group had achieved low disease activity and 45% had achieved remission, compared with 58.6% of patients in the ustekinumab group who achieved low disease activity and 31.4% who achieved remission.
A similar pattern was seen for minimal disease activity and very low disease activity, which were achieved by 54.2% and 26.9% respectively of those in the TNF inhibitor group, and 41.4% and 19.2% respectively of those in the ustekinumab group.
Because the study was observational and real-world, the choice of therapy was made by the treating rheumatologist rather than patients being randomized. There were some baseline differences between the ustekinumab and TNF inhibitor groups; for example, patients in ustekinumab group were generally older and with more comorbidities, and were more likely to have previous been treated with biologics. However, they were also less likely to be concurrently treated with methotrexate and NSAIDs, and more likely to have severe skin involvement.
The study saw a higher rate of adverse events in the TNF inhibitor group, compared with the ustekinumab, with 39.7% of patients treated with TNF inhibitor and 34.6% of those treated with ustekinumab reporting at least one adverse event. The rates of serious adverse events and malignancies were similar for the two groups, but overall the ustekinumab group had a lower rate of clinically-relevant adverse events including infections.
The study was sponsored by Janssen, which markets ustekinumab. Ten authors declared personal fees, grants, and nonfinancial support from the pharmaceutical sector, including Janssen. One author was an employee of Janssen, one an employee of Johnson & Johnson, and two are editorial board members of Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) is nearly as effective as a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor for psoriatic arthritis, and patients are slightly more likely to persist with it and have a lower rate of adverse events, a 3-year, real-world study has found.
In a paper published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers presented the outcomes of the prospective, observational PsABio study of 895 adults with psoriatic arthritis, who were starting treatment for the first time with either ustekinumab or a TNF inhibitor as first-, second-, or third-line treatment.
At 3 years after starting therapy, 49.9% of the 439 patients prescribed ustekinumab were still on that treatment, compared with 47.8% of the 456 patients prescribed a TNF inhibitor. However, there were differences in persistence based on clinical presentation. Patients who had severe skin involvement who were treated with ustekinumab stayed on the drug for longer than did those with severe skin involvement treated with a TNF inhibitor, and they were more likely to persist with their treatment for the 3 years of the study. However, there were numerically more patients with mild or moderate skin involvement taking a TNF inhibitor who stayed persistent with the treatment, compared with those taking ustekinumab, although the differences were not statistically significant.
“In the ustekinumab group, skin response was an important reason for prolonged persistence, with more patients in the ustekinumab group stopping/switching due to lack of effectiveness,” wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and coauthors. “This is expected, as psoriasis can significantly affect morbidity, and successfully treating skin symptoms improves patients’ health-related quality of life.”
The authors also noted that patients on ustekinumab monotherapy had the highest rate of persistence and stayed on treatment longer than did those on TNF inhibitor monotherapy, or on dual therapy with either drug combined with methotrexate. They suggested this could be because patients on TNF inhibitor monotherapy may be more likely to develop antidrug antibodies than those on ustekinumab monotherapy. It could also be because adding methotrexate may increase the risk of adverse events, but without necessarily increasing the effectiveness of ustekinumab on skin involvement.
In terms of efficacy, researchers saw that 69.8% of patients in the TNF inhibitor group had achieved low disease activity and 45% had achieved remission, compared with 58.6% of patients in the ustekinumab group who achieved low disease activity and 31.4% who achieved remission.
A similar pattern was seen for minimal disease activity and very low disease activity, which were achieved by 54.2% and 26.9% respectively of those in the TNF inhibitor group, and 41.4% and 19.2% respectively of those in the ustekinumab group.
Because the study was observational and real-world, the choice of therapy was made by the treating rheumatologist rather than patients being randomized. There were some baseline differences between the ustekinumab and TNF inhibitor groups; for example, patients in ustekinumab group were generally older and with more comorbidities, and were more likely to have previous been treated with biologics. However, they were also less likely to be concurrently treated with methotrexate and NSAIDs, and more likely to have severe skin involvement.
The study saw a higher rate of adverse events in the TNF inhibitor group, compared with the ustekinumab, with 39.7% of patients treated with TNF inhibitor and 34.6% of those treated with ustekinumab reporting at least one adverse event. The rates of serious adverse events and malignancies were similar for the two groups, but overall the ustekinumab group had a lower rate of clinically-relevant adverse events including infections.
The study was sponsored by Janssen, which markets ustekinumab. Ten authors declared personal fees, grants, and nonfinancial support from the pharmaceutical sector, including Janssen. One author was an employee of Janssen, one an employee of Johnson & Johnson, and two are editorial board members of Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) is nearly as effective as a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor for psoriatic arthritis, and patients are slightly more likely to persist with it and have a lower rate of adverse events, a 3-year, real-world study has found.
In a paper published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers presented the outcomes of the prospective, observational PsABio study of 895 adults with psoriatic arthritis, who were starting treatment for the first time with either ustekinumab or a TNF inhibitor as first-, second-, or third-line treatment.
At 3 years after starting therapy, 49.9% of the 439 patients prescribed ustekinumab were still on that treatment, compared with 47.8% of the 456 patients prescribed a TNF inhibitor. However, there were differences in persistence based on clinical presentation. Patients who had severe skin involvement who were treated with ustekinumab stayed on the drug for longer than did those with severe skin involvement treated with a TNF inhibitor, and they were more likely to persist with their treatment for the 3 years of the study. However, there were numerically more patients with mild or moderate skin involvement taking a TNF inhibitor who stayed persistent with the treatment, compared with those taking ustekinumab, although the differences were not statistically significant.
“In the ustekinumab group, skin response was an important reason for prolonged persistence, with more patients in the ustekinumab group stopping/switching due to lack of effectiveness,” wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and coauthors. “This is expected, as psoriasis can significantly affect morbidity, and successfully treating skin symptoms improves patients’ health-related quality of life.”
The authors also noted that patients on ustekinumab monotherapy had the highest rate of persistence and stayed on treatment longer than did those on TNF inhibitor monotherapy, or on dual therapy with either drug combined with methotrexate. They suggested this could be because patients on TNF inhibitor monotherapy may be more likely to develop antidrug antibodies than those on ustekinumab monotherapy. It could also be because adding methotrexate may increase the risk of adverse events, but without necessarily increasing the effectiveness of ustekinumab on skin involvement.
In terms of efficacy, researchers saw that 69.8% of patients in the TNF inhibitor group had achieved low disease activity and 45% had achieved remission, compared with 58.6% of patients in the ustekinumab group who achieved low disease activity and 31.4% who achieved remission.
A similar pattern was seen for minimal disease activity and very low disease activity, which were achieved by 54.2% and 26.9% respectively of those in the TNF inhibitor group, and 41.4% and 19.2% respectively of those in the ustekinumab group.
Because the study was observational and real-world, the choice of therapy was made by the treating rheumatologist rather than patients being randomized. There were some baseline differences between the ustekinumab and TNF inhibitor groups; for example, patients in ustekinumab group were generally older and with more comorbidities, and were more likely to have previous been treated with biologics. However, they were also less likely to be concurrently treated with methotrexate and NSAIDs, and more likely to have severe skin involvement.
The study saw a higher rate of adverse events in the TNF inhibitor group, compared with the ustekinumab, with 39.7% of patients treated with TNF inhibitor and 34.6% of those treated with ustekinumab reporting at least one adverse event. The rates of serious adverse events and malignancies were similar for the two groups, but overall the ustekinumab group had a lower rate of clinically-relevant adverse events including infections.
The study was sponsored by Janssen, which markets ustekinumab. Ten authors declared personal fees, grants, and nonfinancial support from the pharmaceutical sector, including Janssen. One author was an employee of Janssen, one an employee of Johnson & Johnson, and two are editorial board members of Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Psoriatic arthritis has greater impact on women than men
Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience a higher disease burden than that of men with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life, based on data from a cross-sectional survey of more than 2,000 individuals and their rheumatologists and dermatologists.
Although PsA affects men and women in equal numbers, previous research suggests differences in clinical manifestations based on gender that may manifest in many ways, including quality of life, but data on sex differences in PsA are limited, wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.
In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and dermatologists and their patients with PsA during June-August 2018. The study population included 2,270 adults from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The mean age of the patients was 48.6 years, the mean duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 46% (1,047 patients) were women.
The survey data included information on demographics, treatment, and clinical characteristics, such as tender and swollen joint counts and body surface area affected by psoriasis. The researchers assessed quality of life on the survey using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the impact of disease using the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12). They assessed patients’ disability and work productivity using the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire (WPAI).
Overall disease presentation, duration, and use of biologics were similar between men and women. However, women reported significantly worse quality of life compared with men, with a mean EQ-5D score of 0.80 vs. 0.82 (P = .02).
Women also scored higher than men on measures of disability and work impairment, with mean HAQ-DI scores of 0.56 vs. 0.41 and mean WPAI scores of 27.9% vs. 24.6%, respectively (P < .01).
Disease burden was significantly higher in women vs. men based on PsAID12 scores (2.66 vs. 2.27, respectively) and women reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and pain (P < .01 for all).
More men than women reported working full-time (68.6% vs. 49.4%) but no gender differences emerged for work time missed because of PsA, the researchers noted.
However, women had significantly fewer comorbidities compared with men, based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.10 vs. 1.15, P < .01).
“Other factors not assessed in the study are likely to be contributing to disease burden, and these unmeasured factors may affect men and women differently,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. These factors may include hormone levels and treatment outcomes, as well as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and joint erosion, they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible overrepresentation of patients who visited physicians more often, the use of self-reports, and potential recall bias, as well as the lack of data on fibromyalgia prevalence using a validated score, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large and geographically diverse study population and highlight the need for more research to examine the additional disease burden of PsA in women, and the potential of alternative treatment regimens to improve management of PsA in women, they concluded.
Mechanisms driving sex differences remain unclear
“In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the effect of sex on the manifestations and impact of PsA as well as on the response to therapy,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Krembil Research Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The current study findings support previous research showing differences in disease expression in PsA between men and women, Dr. Gladman said. Several studies have shown more axial disease and joint damage in men than in women, while women reported greater functional disability and worse quality of life than men. The reasons for gender differences remain unclear, and genetics may play a role as well, she said.
Dr. Gladman emphasized the need for more research on the impact of fibromyalgia (FM) in particular. “As was shown in a previous study, the presence of FM affects the clinical assessment of patients with PsA,” she wrote. Fibromyalgia and pain reporting also may affect clinical trials of patients with PsA; however, the effect of fibromyalgia on sex differences is uncertain, she said. “In a disease that affects men and women equally, recognizing sex effect is important,” and more research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind this effect, she concluded.
The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gossec disclosed receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from Janssen and 13 other pharmaceutical companies. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, and several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Janssen. Dr. Gladman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience a higher disease burden than that of men with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life, based on data from a cross-sectional survey of more than 2,000 individuals and their rheumatologists and dermatologists.
Although PsA affects men and women in equal numbers, previous research suggests differences in clinical manifestations based on gender that may manifest in many ways, including quality of life, but data on sex differences in PsA are limited, wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.
In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and dermatologists and their patients with PsA during June-August 2018. The study population included 2,270 adults from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The mean age of the patients was 48.6 years, the mean duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 46% (1,047 patients) were women.
The survey data included information on demographics, treatment, and clinical characteristics, such as tender and swollen joint counts and body surface area affected by psoriasis. The researchers assessed quality of life on the survey using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the impact of disease using the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12). They assessed patients’ disability and work productivity using the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire (WPAI).
Overall disease presentation, duration, and use of biologics were similar between men and women. However, women reported significantly worse quality of life compared with men, with a mean EQ-5D score of 0.80 vs. 0.82 (P = .02).
Women also scored higher than men on measures of disability and work impairment, with mean HAQ-DI scores of 0.56 vs. 0.41 and mean WPAI scores of 27.9% vs. 24.6%, respectively (P < .01).
Disease burden was significantly higher in women vs. men based on PsAID12 scores (2.66 vs. 2.27, respectively) and women reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and pain (P < .01 for all).
More men than women reported working full-time (68.6% vs. 49.4%) but no gender differences emerged for work time missed because of PsA, the researchers noted.
However, women had significantly fewer comorbidities compared with men, based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.10 vs. 1.15, P < .01).
“Other factors not assessed in the study are likely to be contributing to disease burden, and these unmeasured factors may affect men and women differently,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. These factors may include hormone levels and treatment outcomes, as well as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and joint erosion, they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible overrepresentation of patients who visited physicians more often, the use of self-reports, and potential recall bias, as well as the lack of data on fibromyalgia prevalence using a validated score, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large and geographically diverse study population and highlight the need for more research to examine the additional disease burden of PsA in women, and the potential of alternative treatment regimens to improve management of PsA in women, they concluded.
Mechanisms driving sex differences remain unclear
“In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the effect of sex on the manifestations and impact of PsA as well as on the response to therapy,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Krembil Research Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The current study findings support previous research showing differences in disease expression in PsA between men and women, Dr. Gladman said. Several studies have shown more axial disease and joint damage in men than in women, while women reported greater functional disability and worse quality of life than men. The reasons for gender differences remain unclear, and genetics may play a role as well, she said.
Dr. Gladman emphasized the need for more research on the impact of fibromyalgia (FM) in particular. “As was shown in a previous study, the presence of FM affects the clinical assessment of patients with PsA,” she wrote. Fibromyalgia and pain reporting also may affect clinical trials of patients with PsA; however, the effect of fibromyalgia on sex differences is uncertain, she said. “In a disease that affects men and women equally, recognizing sex effect is important,” and more research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind this effect, she concluded.
The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gossec disclosed receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from Janssen and 13 other pharmaceutical companies. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, and several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Janssen. Dr. Gladman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience a higher disease burden than that of men with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life, based on data from a cross-sectional survey of more than 2,000 individuals and their rheumatologists and dermatologists.
Although PsA affects men and women in equal numbers, previous research suggests differences in clinical manifestations based on gender that may manifest in many ways, including quality of life, but data on sex differences in PsA are limited, wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.
In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and dermatologists and their patients with PsA during June-August 2018. The study population included 2,270 adults from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The mean age of the patients was 48.6 years, the mean duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 46% (1,047 patients) were women.
The survey data included information on demographics, treatment, and clinical characteristics, such as tender and swollen joint counts and body surface area affected by psoriasis. The researchers assessed quality of life on the survey using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the impact of disease using the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12). They assessed patients’ disability and work productivity using the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire (WPAI).
Overall disease presentation, duration, and use of biologics were similar between men and women. However, women reported significantly worse quality of life compared with men, with a mean EQ-5D score of 0.80 vs. 0.82 (P = .02).
Women also scored higher than men on measures of disability and work impairment, with mean HAQ-DI scores of 0.56 vs. 0.41 and mean WPAI scores of 27.9% vs. 24.6%, respectively (P < .01).
Disease burden was significantly higher in women vs. men based on PsAID12 scores (2.66 vs. 2.27, respectively) and women reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and pain (P < .01 for all).
More men than women reported working full-time (68.6% vs. 49.4%) but no gender differences emerged for work time missed because of PsA, the researchers noted.
However, women had significantly fewer comorbidities compared with men, based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.10 vs. 1.15, P < .01).
“Other factors not assessed in the study are likely to be contributing to disease burden, and these unmeasured factors may affect men and women differently,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. These factors may include hormone levels and treatment outcomes, as well as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and joint erosion, they said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible overrepresentation of patients who visited physicians more often, the use of self-reports, and potential recall bias, as well as the lack of data on fibromyalgia prevalence using a validated score, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large and geographically diverse study population and highlight the need for more research to examine the additional disease burden of PsA in women, and the potential of alternative treatment regimens to improve management of PsA in women, they concluded.
Mechanisms driving sex differences remain unclear
“In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the effect of sex on the manifestations and impact of PsA as well as on the response to therapy,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Krembil Research Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The current study findings support previous research showing differences in disease expression in PsA between men and women, Dr. Gladman said. Several studies have shown more axial disease and joint damage in men than in women, while women reported greater functional disability and worse quality of life than men. The reasons for gender differences remain unclear, and genetics may play a role as well, she said.
Dr. Gladman emphasized the need for more research on the impact of fibromyalgia (FM) in particular. “As was shown in a previous study, the presence of FM affects the clinical assessment of patients with PsA,” she wrote. Fibromyalgia and pain reporting also may affect clinical trials of patients with PsA; however, the effect of fibromyalgia on sex differences is uncertain, she said. “In a disease that affects men and women equally, recognizing sex effect is important,” and more research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind this effect, she concluded.
The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gossec disclosed receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from Janssen and 13 other pharmaceutical companies. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, and several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Janssen. Dr. Gladman had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Analysis of PsA guidelines reveals much room for improvement on conflicts of interest
, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).
In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”
Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:
- Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
- Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
- Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
- Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.
Financial conflicts of interest
The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”
The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.
A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,
The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.
Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.
The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).
“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.
The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.
The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.
Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.
This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.
, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).
In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”
Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:
- Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
- Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
- Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
- Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.
Financial conflicts of interest
The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”
The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.
A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,
The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.
Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.
The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).
“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.
The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.
The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.
Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.
This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.
, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).
In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”
Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:
- Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
- Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
- Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
- Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.
Financial conflicts of interest
The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”
The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.
A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,
The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.
Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.
The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).
“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
Nonfinancial conflicts of interest
Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.
The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.
The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.
Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.
This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis insurance coverage remains restrictive
Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.
Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.
Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.
The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.
All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.
Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.
“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.
The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.
“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.
The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.
Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.
Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.
The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.
All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.
Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.
“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.
The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.
“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.
The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
Insurance coverage for specialty drugs to treat psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis varies extensively among insurance companies and often restricts coverage beyond the drug labels, according to a review of data from commercial health plans in the United States.
Although specialty medications have demonstrated effectiveness for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, data on insurance coverage for these indications are limited and costs are often a barrier to treatment, Christine Learned, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues wrote.
In a study published in the Journal of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, the researchers used the Tufts Medical Center Specialty Drug Evidence and Coverage database, which includes information on 158 specialty drugs covered by 17 U.S. commercial health plans, to review data on a total of 11 medications indicated for psoriasis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, and apremilast) and 11 indicated for psoriatic arthritis (etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, ustekinumab, guselkumab, tofacitinib, apremilast, and abatacept) at the time of the study.
Overall, an average of 78.6% and 66.8% of insurance plans were more restrictive than the Food and Drug Association label in coverage of specialty medications for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, respectively.
Disease severity affected insurance coverage for psoriasis. The percentage of plans with a body surface area requirement for specialty medications ranged from 11% for apremilast to 39% for tildrakizumab, adalimumab, and certolizumab pegol. The percentage of plans with exceptions for special body locations affected by psoriasis ranged from 6% for risankizumab and brodalumab to 39% for certolizumab pegol. In addition, 6% of plans had Psoriasis Area and Severity Index requirements for etanercept and ixekizumab, and 11% had PASI requirements for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and tildrakizumab.
The percentage of plans with prescriber restrictions for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis ranged from 33% to 50%.
All 11 medications for psoriatic arthritis were approved as first-line treatments by at least one plan, compared with 3 the 11 medications with indications for psoriasis. However, medications for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis were approved mainly as second-line therapies.
Study designs may impact insurance coverage, as randomized, controlled trials are often used as the basis for coverage decisions for psoriasis, while coverage for psoriatic arthritis is more often based on clinical guidelines, the researchers explained.
“Our analysis confirms that variability exists for the indications of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” they wrote.
The comorbidities associated with psoriasis are not always considered in insurance coverage, and coverage complications may contribute to the persistent undertreatment of many patients with psoriasis, the researchers added.
“Insurance restrictions may blunt provider and patient autonomy in selection of specialty medications and have the potential to diminish a provider’s ability to tailor regimens so as to optimize outcomes while minimizing risks,” they emphasized.
The study findings were limited by the inclusion only of publicly available policy information; therefore, some plans’ restrictions may have been missed in the analysis, the researchers said.
The results suggest that patients should review their insurance coverage of specialty drugs when choosing a health plan, and clinicians should factor in a patient’s plan a likely drug access when considering treatment options, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Ms. Learned had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose, but two coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer drugs for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSORIASIS AND PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS
Should patients with PsA or ankylosing spondylitis with axial disease be ‘lumped’ or ‘split’?
A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.
This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.
The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.
According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.
“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.
When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.
“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.
Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.
“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.
The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.
This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.
The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.
According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.
“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.
When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.
“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.
Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.
“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.
The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.
This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.
The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.
According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.
“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.
When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.
“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.
“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.
Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.
“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.
The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Autoimmune disease patients’ waxing, waning response to COVID vaccination studied in-depth
A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.
The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.
This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.
“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
What was studied?
For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.
A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.
Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.
Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.
“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.
One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
Need to take care
“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”
It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”
These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.
“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.
“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.
“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”
Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”
The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.
The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.
This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.
“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
What was studied?
For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.
A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.
Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.
Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.
“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.
One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
Need to take care
“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”
It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”
These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.
“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.
“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.
“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”
Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”
The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.
The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.
This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.
“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
What was studied?
For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.
A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.
Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.
Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.
“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.
One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
Need to take care
“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”
It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”
These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.
“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.
“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.
“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”
Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”
The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY
Ustekinumab becomes second biologic approved for PsA in kids
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual interleukin-12 and IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) in patients aged 6 years and older, according to an Aug. 1 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
The approval makes jPsA the sixth approved indication for ustekinumab, which include active psoriatic arthritis in adults, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in both adults and children aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in adults, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults.
In addition, ustekinumab is now the second biologic to be approved for jPsA, following the agency’s December 2021 approval of secukinumab (Cosentyx) to treat jPsA in children and adolescents aged 2 years and older as well as enthesitis-related arthritis in children and adolescents aged 4 years and older.
In pediatric patients, ustekinumab is administered as a subcutaneous injection dosed four times per year after two starter doses.
Ustekinumab’s approval is based on “an extrapolation of the established data and existing safety profile” of ustekinumab in multiple phase 3 studies in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and adult patients with active PsA, according to Janssen.
“With the limited availability of pediatric patients for clinical trial inclusion, researchers can extrapolate data from trials with adults to determine the potential efficacy and tolerability of a treatment for a pediatric population,” according to the October 2021 announcement from the company that the Biologics License Application had been submitted to the FDA.
Juvenile arthritis occurs in an estimated 20-45 children per 100,000 in the United States, with about 5% of those children having jPsA, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
The prescribing information for ustekinumab includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals with known hypersensitivity to ustekinumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, sometimes serious, and a test for tuberculosis infection should be given before administration.
Patients taking ustekinumab should not be given a live vaccine, and their doctors should be informed if anyone in their household needs a live vaccine. They also should not receive the BCG vaccine during the 1 year before receiving the drug or 1 year after they stop taking it, according to Johnson & Johnson.
The most common adverse effects include nasal congestion, sore throat, runny nose, upper respiratory infections, fever, headache, tiredness, itching, nausea and vomiting, redness at the injection site, vaginal yeast infections, urinary tract infections, sinus infection, bronchitis, diarrhea, stomach pain, and joint pain.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual interleukin-12 and IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) in patients aged 6 years and older, according to an Aug. 1 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
The approval makes jPsA the sixth approved indication for ustekinumab, which include active psoriatic arthritis in adults, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in both adults and children aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in adults, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults.
In addition, ustekinumab is now the second biologic to be approved for jPsA, following the agency’s December 2021 approval of secukinumab (Cosentyx) to treat jPsA in children and adolescents aged 2 years and older as well as enthesitis-related arthritis in children and adolescents aged 4 years and older.
In pediatric patients, ustekinumab is administered as a subcutaneous injection dosed four times per year after two starter doses.
Ustekinumab’s approval is based on “an extrapolation of the established data and existing safety profile” of ustekinumab in multiple phase 3 studies in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and adult patients with active PsA, according to Janssen.
“With the limited availability of pediatric patients for clinical trial inclusion, researchers can extrapolate data from trials with adults to determine the potential efficacy and tolerability of a treatment for a pediatric population,” according to the October 2021 announcement from the company that the Biologics License Application had been submitted to the FDA.
Juvenile arthritis occurs in an estimated 20-45 children per 100,000 in the United States, with about 5% of those children having jPsA, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
The prescribing information for ustekinumab includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals with known hypersensitivity to ustekinumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, sometimes serious, and a test for tuberculosis infection should be given before administration.
Patients taking ustekinumab should not be given a live vaccine, and their doctors should be informed if anyone in their household needs a live vaccine. They also should not receive the BCG vaccine during the 1 year before receiving the drug or 1 year after they stop taking it, according to Johnson & Johnson.
The most common adverse effects include nasal congestion, sore throat, runny nose, upper respiratory infections, fever, headache, tiredness, itching, nausea and vomiting, redness at the injection site, vaginal yeast infections, urinary tract infections, sinus infection, bronchitis, diarrhea, stomach pain, and joint pain.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual interleukin-12 and IL-23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of juvenile psoriatic arthritis (jPsA) in patients aged 6 years and older, according to an Aug. 1 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
The approval makes jPsA the sixth approved indication for ustekinumab, which include active psoriatic arthritis in adults, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in both adults and children aged 6 years or older who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease in adults, and moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults.
In addition, ustekinumab is now the second biologic to be approved for jPsA, following the agency’s December 2021 approval of secukinumab (Cosentyx) to treat jPsA in children and adolescents aged 2 years and older as well as enthesitis-related arthritis in children and adolescents aged 4 years and older.
In pediatric patients, ustekinumab is administered as a subcutaneous injection dosed four times per year after two starter doses.
Ustekinumab’s approval is based on “an extrapolation of the established data and existing safety profile” of ustekinumab in multiple phase 3 studies in adult and pediatric patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and adult patients with active PsA, according to Janssen.
“With the limited availability of pediatric patients for clinical trial inclusion, researchers can extrapolate data from trials with adults to determine the potential efficacy and tolerability of a treatment for a pediatric population,” according to the October 2021 announcement from the company that the Biologics License Application had been submitted to the FDA.
Juvenile arthritis occurs in an estimated 20-45 children per 100,000 in the United States, with about 5% of those children having jPsA, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation.
The prescribing information for ustekinumab includes specific warnings and areas of concern. The drug should not be administered to individuals with known hypersensitivity to ustekinumab. The drug may lower the ability of the immune system to fight infections and may increase risk of infections, sometimes serious, and a test for tuberculosis infection should be given before administration.
Patients taking ustekinumab should not be given a live vaccine, and their doctors should be informed if anyone in their household needs a live vaccine. They also should not receive the BCG vaccine during the 1 year before receiving the drug or 1 year after they stop taking it, according to Johnson & Johnson.
The most common adverse effects include nasal congestion, sore throat, runny nose, upper respiratory infections, fever, headache, tiredness, itching, nausea and vomiting, redness at the injection site, vaginal yeast infections, urinary tract infections, sinus infection, bronchitis, diarrhea, stomach pain, and joint pain.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.