User login
Doctors hesitated to embrace biosimilar infliximab in first 2 years
Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.
“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).
They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.
In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.
Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.
The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.
SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.
Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.
“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).
They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.
In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.
Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.
The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.
SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.
Physicians have been slow to embrace biosimilar versions of infliximab, but are more likely to prescribe it to new patients, based on data from a review of nearly 50,000 infliximab claims through Medicare in the first 2 years that biosimilars were available in the United States.
“Although biosimilar versions are as safe and effective as the biologic, patients and physicians may be more reluctant to switch from a working biologic regimen in a chronic setting than an acute one,” wrote Alice J. Chen, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.
In a research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the investigators examined prescribing patterns of physicians switching between the originator infliximab (Remicade) and two of its biosimilars (Inflectra and Renflexis).
They reviewed infliximab use and reimbursement in the 100% Medicare Part B quarterly claims database from Jan. 1, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2018. The study population included Medicare patients classified as new if they had no infliximab claims in the prior 6 months; those with claims were considered returning patients.
In a comparison of claims reflecting 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians in 2018, a total of 1,418 new patients (17.4%) and 4,495 (10.8%) returning patients used a biosimilar. “Of returning patients, half used the biosimilar version exclusively, whereas the other half switched between biologic and biosimilar versions,” the researchers noted.
Of the 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab, 3,124 prescribed no biosimilars, 1,015 prescribed both biologics and biosimilars, and 150 prescribed biosimilars only. Of the physicians who prescribed both, approximately 61% switched some patients from the biologic to the biosimilar; “the remainder kept individual patients on only 1 version of the drug but treated patients with both versions,” the researchers wrote.
The adoption of biosimilars may be slower for chronic vs. acute conditions, the researchers noted. “Prescribers may hesitate to switch clinically stable chronic patients from biologic regimens if they are unfamiliar with the biosimilar or face financial disincentives from prescribing it.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of only 2 years of data and a focus only on Medicare Part B. Switching medications may have been influenced by factors such as lower copays for patients and rebates or discounts for physicians; however, “further research is needed to better understand biosimilar pricing dynamics and the barriers to adopting biosimilars for chronic conditions,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.
SOURCE: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Key clinical point: A total of 17% of patients new to infliximab received a biosimilar in 2018, compared with 11% of returning patients.
Major finding: Biosimilar infliximab accounted for 10% of the market share 2 years after the product was introduced.
Study details: The data come from a review of infliximab claims across 49,771 patients and 4,289 physicians who prescribed infliximab in 2018.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute on Aging. Lead author Dr. Chen also disclosed receiving personal fees from Amgen outside of the current study.
Source: Chen AJ et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 July 20. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3188.
Clinicians address psoriatic disease risk in the era of COVID-19
COVID-19 has posed serious questions for patients with psoriatic disease and the clinicians who treat them. Both have serious concerns over whether psoriasis or the medications used to treat it pose additional risk for contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes with illness.
At the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, experts gathered to discuss these concerns and what is known about the special risk factors for psoriatic disease patients.
Studies from a few registries have been done already among patients with autoimmune disease, and the results so far suggest that patients may be able to breathe a little easier. “I don’t see any data that suggests that use of immunosuppressives or having autoimmune disease increases your risk of acquiring it. I think most of the risk is driven by risk of exposure,” said Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a professor of public health, infectious diseases, ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, during a presentation.
That assertion was reinforced by data presented by Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at New York University Langone Health. Her group created the Web-Based Assessment of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WARCOV) cohort study to address the question of whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease, should discontinue or modify their immunotherapy regimens in the face of potential exposure to COVID-19.
To date, the study has data on 1,122 patients; 604 with inflammatory arthritis, 128 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. The team established a cohort using the first 86 IMID patients confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. The hospitalization rate was 16% overall, and use of corticosteroids was associated with increased hospitalization risk. A follow-up analysis looking at the first 103 inflammatory arthritis patients who contracted COVID-19 showed a hospitalization rate of 26% and a mortality of 4%. That hospitalization rate is similar to the general hospitalization rate estimated by the New York Department of Health, Dr. Haberman said in her presentation.
Risk factors associated with hospitalization included being older and having asthma or COPD, which is similar to the general population. Use of oral glucocorticoids was linked to a big increase in risk for hospitalization, even with doses less than 10 mg prednisone daily (odds ratio, 14.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-57.70). There were no links between use of any cytokine therapy and risk, but use of TNF inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97), while use of JAK inhibitors was associated with greater risk (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.68-23.69). The latter result is tentative because of a small sample size, and it was driven largely by the experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Another study, run by the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, looked at 600 patients with rheumatic disease from 40 countries, and “found no smoking gun,” said Leonard Calabrese, DO, who leads the Cleveland Clinic’s section of clinical immunology, during his presentation. “People can develop this when they’re on hydroxychloroquine. They seem to do not remarkably bad or remarkably good. There is no adverse signal for biologics, but being on prednisone [at a dose of] more than 10 mg is not great,” said Dr. Calabrese, who also noted that other publications have supported these conclusions.
So given these findings, how should clinicians address patient concerns? In the absence of probable exposure, “we say it’s better to have a well-controlled IMID on therapy than a poorly-controlled IMID on submaximal therapy. We say stick to therapy and try to wean the prednisone down as low as possible,” Dr. Calabrese said.
More controversially, what should patients do if they have had a significant exposure, such as a close proximity, prolonged exposure encounter with an individual with documented COVID-19, or at high-risk of disease? Dr. Calabrese noted that the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines recommend that low-level immunomodulation can be continued, “with an asterisk if it’s hydroxychloroquine, and it is in most of our minds now that we know that it is not effective, and the toxicity in the COVID setting is still being worked out,” he said.
With respect to other immunosuppressants, the ACR recommends stopping them temporarily, although IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances. Resumption of the therapeutics can resume after a negative COVID test or completion of a 2-week observation period.
When patients contract COVID-19, antimalarial medications can be continued because they have been studied. “But medium-level immunomodulators, in particular methotrexate, I have grave concerns about because it can inhibit the adaptive immune response and antibody formation,” he said. COVID-19 is a serious infection, and all serious biologics have a package insert saying to stop them in a serious infection. Again, IL-6 inhibitors may be considered an exception in the right circumstances. When to resume these medications remains unknown. “I think that’s a work in progress. Test-based versus clinic-based strategies are a matter of controversy,” Dr. Calabrese said.
Ultimately, the question of what to do with immunosuppressive therapies in this population will continue to be a challenge. “The only good answer is to follow the rules of social distancing and to wear a mask,” said Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, a cochair of the department of dermatology and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
COVID-19 has posed serious questions for patients with psoriatic disease and the clinicians who treat them. Both have serious concerns over whether psoriasis or the medications used to treat it pose additional risk for contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes with illness.
At the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, experts gathered to discuss these concerns and what is known about the special risk factors for psoriatic disease patients.
Studies from a few registries have been done already among patients with autoimmune disease, and the results so far suggest that patients may be able to breathe a little easier. “I don’t see any data that suggests that use of immunosuppressives or having autoimmune disease increases your risk of acquiring it. I think most of the risk is driven by risk of exposure,” said Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a professor of public health, infectious diseases, ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, during a presentation.
That assertion was reinforced by data presented by Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at New York University Langone Health. Her group created the Web-Based Assessment of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WARCOV) cohort study to address the question of whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease, should discontinue or modify their immunotherapy regimens in the face of potential exposure to COVID-19.
To date, the study has data on 1,122 patients; 604 with inflammatory arthritis, 128 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. The team established a cohort using the first 86 IMID patients confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. The hospitalization rate was 16% overall, and use of corticosteroids was associated with increased hospitalization risk. A follow-up analysis looking at the first 103 inflammatory arthritis patients who contracted COVID-19 showed a hospitalization rate of 26% and a mortality of 4%. That hospitalization rate is similar to the general hospitalization rate estimated by the New York Department of Health, Dr. Haberman said in her presentation.
Risk factors associated with hospitalization included being older and having asthma or COPD, which is similar to the general population. Use of oral glucocorticoids was linked to a big increase in risk for hospitalization, even with doses less than 10 mg prednisone daily (odds ratio, 14.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-57.70). There were no links between use of any cytokine therapy and risk, but use of TNF inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97), while use of JAK inhibitors was associated with greater risk (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.68-23.69). The latter result is tentative because of a small sample size, and it was driven largely by the experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Another study, run by the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, looked at 600 patients with rheumatic disease from 40 countries, and “found no smoking gun,” said Leonard Calabrese, DO, who leads the Cleveland Clinic’s section of clinical immunology, during his presentation. “People can develop this when they’re on hydroxychloroquine. They seem to do not remarkably bad or remarkably good. There is no adverse signal for biologics, but being on prednisone [at a dose of] more than 10 mg is not great,” said Dr. Calabrese, who also noted that other publications have supported these conclusions.
So given these findings, how should clinicians address patient concerns? In the absence of probable exposure, “we say it’s better to have a well-controlled IMID on therapy than a poorly-controlled IMID on submaximal therapy. We say stick to therapy and try to wean the prednisone down as low as possible,” Dr. Calabrese said.
More controversially, what should patients do if they have had a significant exposure, such as a close proximity, prolonged exposure encounter with an individual with documented COVID-19, or at high-risk of disease? Dr. Calabrese noted that the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines recommend that low-level immunomodulation can be continued, “with an asterisk if it’s hydroxychloroquine, and it is in most of our minds now that we know that it is not effective, and the toxicity in the COVID setting is still being worked out,” he said.
With respect to other immunosuppressants, the ACR recommends stopping them temporarily, although IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances. Resumption of the therapeutics can resume after a negative COVID test or completion of a 2-week observation period.
When patients contract COVID-19, antimalarial medications can be continued because they have been studied. “But medium-level immunomodulators, in particular methotrexate, I have grave concerns about because it can inhibit the adaptive immune response and antibody formation,” he said. COVID-19 is a serious infection, and all serious biologics have a package insert saying to stop them in a serious infection. Again, IL-6 inhibitors may be considered an exception in the right circumstances. When to resume these medications remains unknown. “I think that’s a work in progress. Test-based versus clinic-based strategies are a matter of controversy,” Dr. Calabrese said.
Ultimately, the question of what to do with immunosuppressive therapies in this population will continue to be a challenge. “The only good answer is to follow the rules of social distancing and to wear a mask,” said Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, a cochair of the department of dermatology and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
COVID-19 has posed serious questions for patients with psoriatic disease and the clinicians who treat them. Both have serious concerns over whether psoriasis or the medications used to treat it pose additional risk for contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes with illness.
At the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis, experts gathered to discuss these concerns and what is known about the special risk factors for psoriatic disease patients.
Studies from a few registries have been done already among patients with autoimmune disease, and the results so far suggest that patients may be able to breathe a little easier. “I don’t see any data that suggests that use of immunosuppressives or having autoimmune disease increases your risk of acquiring it. I think most of the risk is driven by risk of exposure,” said Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, a professor of public health, infectious diseases, ophthalmology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, during a presentation.
That assertion was reinforced by data presented by Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at New York University Langone Health. Her group created the Web-Based Assessment of Autoimmune, Immune-Mediated, and Rheumatic Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic (WARCOV) cohort study to address the question of whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID), including inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease, should discontinue or modify their immunotherapy regimens in the face of potential exposure to COVID-19.
To date, the study has data on 1,122 patients; 604 with inflammatory arthritis, 128 of whom have tested positive for COVID-19. The team established a cohort using the first 86 IMID patients confirmed to have contracted COVID-19. The hospitalization rate was 16% overall, and use of corticosteroids was associated with increased hospitalization risk. A follow-up analysis looking at the first 103 inflammatory arthritis patients who contracted COVID-19 showed a hospitalization rate of 26% and a mortality of 4%. That hospitalization rate is similar to the general hospitalization rate estimated by the New York Department of Health, Dr. Haberman said in her presentation.
Risk factors associated with hospitalization included being older and having asthma or COPD, which is similar to the general population. Use of oral glucocorticoids was linked to a big increase in risk for hospitalization, even with doses less than 10 mg prednisone daily (odds ratio, 14.31; 95% confidence interval, 3.55-57.70). There were no links between use of any cytokine therapy and risk, but use of TNF inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.97), while use of JAK inhibitors was associated with greater risk (OR, 6.30; 95% CI, 1.68-23.69). The latter result is tentative because of a small sample size, and it was driven largely by the experiences of patients with psoriatic arthritis.
Another study, run by the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, looked at 600 patients with rheumatic disease from 40 countries, and “found no smoking gun,” said Leonard Calabrese, DO, who leads the Cleveland Clinic’s section of clinical immunology, during his presentation. “People can develop this when they’re on hydroxychloroquine. They seem to do not remarkably bad or remarkably good. There is no adverse signal for biologics, but being on prednisone [at a dose of] more than 10 mg is not great,” said Dr. Calabrese, who also noted that other publications have supported these conclusions.
So given these findings, how should clinicians address patient concerns? In the absence of probable exposure, “we say it’s better to have a well-controlled IMID on therapy than a poorly-controlled IMID on submaximal therapy. We say stick to therapy and try to wean the prednisone down as low as possible,” Dr. Calabrese said.
More controversially, what should patients do if they have had a significant exposure, such as a close proximity, prolonged exposure encounter with an individual with documented COVID-19, or at high-risk of disease? Dr. Calabrese noted that the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines recommend that low-level immunomodulation can be continued, “with an asterisk if it’s hydroxychloroquine, and it is in most of our minds now that we know that it is not effective, and the toxicity in the COVID setting is still being worked out,” he said.
With respect to other immunosuppressants, the ACR recommends stopping them temporarily, although IL-6 inhibitors may be continued in select circumstances. Resumption of the therapeutics can resume after a negative COVID test or completion of a 2-week observation period.
When patients contract COVID-19, antimalarial medications can be continued because they have been studied. “But medium-level immunomodulators, in particular methotrexate, I have grave concerns about because it can inhibit the adaptive immune response and antibody formation,” he said. COVID-19 is a serious infection, and all serious biologics have a package insert saying to stop them in a serious infection. Again, IL-6 inhibitors may be considered an exception in the right circumstances. When to resume these medications remains unknown. “I think that’s a work in progress. Test-based versus clinic-based strategies are a matter of controversy,” Dr. Calabrese said.
Ultimately, the question of what to do with immunosuppressive therapies in this population will continue to be a challenge. “The only good answer is to follow the rules of social distancing and to wear a mask,” said Kristina Callis Duffin, MD, a cochair of the department of dermatology and associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
FROM THE GRAPPA 2020 VIRTUAL ANNUAL MEETING
FDA approves Tremfya (guselkumab) for psoriatic arthritis
, according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.
The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.
Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.
Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.
Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.
In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.
, according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.
The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.
Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.
Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.
Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.
In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.
, according to a July 14 announcement from its manufacturer, Janssen.
The FDA’s approval marks the second indication for guselkumab, which was first approved for adults with plaque psoriasis in 2017.
The agency based its approval on two pivotal phase 3 clinical trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which tested the biologic in 1,120 adults with active PsA who were naive to biologics (both trials) or had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (in about 30% of patients in DISCOVER-1). Part of this pretrial standard treatment could include at least 4 months of Otezla (apremilast), at least 3 months of nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), or at least 4 weeks of NSAIDs. In both trials, about 58% of patients took methotrexate.
Participants who took guselkumab achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 24 at rates of 52% in DISCOVER-1 and 64% in DISCOVER-2, whereas placebo-treated patients had rates of 22% and 33%, respectively.
Guselkumab improved patients’ other symptoms, including skin manifestations of psoriasis, physical functioning, enthesitis, dactylitis, and fatigue, according to the Janssen release.
Guselkumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the p19 subunit of IL-23, is administered as a 100-mg subcutaneous injection every 8 weeks, following two starter doses at weeks 0 and 4, and can be used alone or in combination with a conventional DMARD.
In guselkumab clinical trials of patients with PsA, a minority had bronchitis or a decreased neutrophil count, but the safety profile was otherwise generally consistent with what has been seen in patients with plaque psoriasis, according to the company release. Other common side effects described in 1% or more of patients have included upper respiratory infections, headache, injection-site reactions, arthralgia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis, tinea infections, and herpes simplex infections.
PASDAS beats DAS28 in measuring psoriatic arthritis treat-to-target success
Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.
Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.
Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.
DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.
With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.
To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.
About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).
Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.
The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.
Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.
Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.
Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.
DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.
With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.
To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.
About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).
Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.
The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.
Measuring success with a treat-to-target strategy in psoriatic arthritis patients proved to be more comprehensive with the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) than it was with the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), according to findings from a prospective cohort study.
Fewer patients had a low disease activity score according to DAS28, and a higher percentage of patients deemed adequately treated according to DAS28 were found to have residual disease activity, compared with the number of patients so categorized according to PASDAS, researcher Michelle Mulder reported in her presentation of the study at the virtual annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA).
“PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored PsA [psoriatic arthritis] cohort suggests relevant residual disease burden, even though DAS28 was measured at every visit previously,” said Ms. Mulder, an MD/PhD student at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
The presentation was convincing to Philip Helliwell, MD, PhD, who is a professor of clinical rheumatology at Leeds (England) University, and was also one of the developers of PASDAS. “We know it can be used in clinical practice with a certain amount of organization and clinical staff to help you,” he said during another presentation at GRAPPA.
Treat to target is a widely accepted therapeutic strategy. It’s particularly common in rheumatoid arthritis, but increasing evidence suggests that it improves patient outcomes in psoriatic arthritis. DAS28 is frequently used in treat-to-target approaches in rheumatoid arthritis, and often gets applied to psoriatic arthritis since rheumatologists are already comfortable with it, according to Ms. Mulder. “However, DAS28 has shown some limitations when used in psoriatic arthritis. For example, its joint count is limited to only 28 joints, and it does not take all PsA domains into account,” she said.
DAS28 was previously used at Sint Maartenskliniek in combination with psoriatic arthritis–specific assessment recommendations, but the institution opted in 2019 to switch to PASDAS, which was developed by GRAPPA and the European League Against Rheumatism. “To better adhere to international PsA guidelines, we chose to implement PASDAS in our cohort with the assumption that it might improve patient care,” Ms. Mulder said.
With DAS28, clinicians measured the C-reactive protein (CRP) and Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) domains and were advised to examine 28 joints for tender and swollen joint count domains. Under the PASDAS guidance, clinicians examined 68 joints for tenderness, 66 joints for swelling, CRP, Patient Global VAS, Physician Global VAS, Leeds Enthesitis Index, dactylitis, and the 12-item Short Form Physical Composite Scale. They also examined the skin, nails, and axial disease.
To examine the effects of the switch from DAS28 to PASDAS, the researchers compared outcomes in 855 patients before and after the change during March to December 2019. The mean age of patients was 55 years, and 46% were female. The mean disease duration was 10 years, and the mean PASDAS score was 3.1. A total of 96% of participants were negative for anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. Overall, 30% had arthritis, 9% had axial disease, 3% had dactylitis, 21% had enthesitis, 51% had skin disease, and 42% had nail disease.
About three-quarters (77.4%) of patients reached the threshold of low disease activity (LDA) according to the DAS28 measure, while 53.1% did so using the PASDAS. High disease activity occurred in 7.8% of patients according to DAS28, compared with 2.7% as measured by PASDAS. Patients who reached only the DAS28 LDA target but not the PASDAS target, compared with patients who reached the LDA target in both measures, had significantly worse counts for swelling in 66 joints (0.7 vs. 0.2; P < .001) and tenderness in 68 joints (2.1 vs. 0.7; P < .001), as well as worse scores for enthesitis (0.5 vs. 0.1; P < .001), dactylitis (4% vs. 1%; P = .005), patient global VAS (44.0 vs. 14.4; P < .001), Health Assessment Questionnaire (0.8 vs. 0.4; P < .001) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (unacceptable score in 17% vs. 3%; P < .001).
Ms. Mulder acknowledged that PASDAS imposes a significant burden on clinicians, and noted that Sint Maartenskliniek created patient infrastructure to handle the load. “It’s very important that you set up your clinic in a specific way. When the patient comes in, we draw blood immediately and we ask them to fill in the questionnaires, and then they go to a specialized nurse who measures all the different components of the PASDAS. It took a lot of time to train the specialized nurses and to implement the PASDAS score in our electronic health records. After we did those things, it was quite easy because we have this whole setup. It takes time and it is difficult, but it is definitely possible to do it,” Ms. Mulder said during a live Q&A following her prerecorded presentation.
The study received no funding. Ms. Mulder had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Helliwell has financial ties to AbbVie, Amgen, Celgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCE: Mulder M et al. GRAPPA 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting.
FROM GRAPPA 2020 VIRTUAL ANNUAL MEETING
Entheseal lesions, bone density linked with incident PsA in psoriasis patients
Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.
“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.
Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.
The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.
The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.
The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.
“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.
Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.
SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.
Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.
“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.
Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.
The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.
The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.
The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.
“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.
Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.
SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.
Structural entheseal lesions and reduced bone mineral density detected using high-resolution CT imaging of a pair of knuckle joints in patients with psoriasis strongly linked with subsequent development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a single-center study with 114 patients followed for an average of 2.3 years.
“These findings substantiate the concept of mechano-inflammation in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease,” and suggest that interventions with high efficacy for controlling entheseal inflammation may be a “particularly valuable strategy in interfering with the onset of PsA in patients with psoriatic disease,” David Simon, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
The study, which is now published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, began with 377 patients with psoriasis who had been referred to the University Hospital in Erlangen, Germany, during 2011-2018, and who tested positive on the German Psoriasis Arthritis Diagnostic questionnaire. The researchers excluded patients with existing signs of PsA, any arthritis or enthesitis or other signs of inflammatory rheumatic disease, and they also excluded patients who had not undergoing a high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT (HR-pQCT) examination of the second and third metacarpal joints of the patient’s nondominant hand, which left 114 patients for their analysis. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 24 patients (27%) developed PsA. The study patients were an average age of 45 years, and they had been diagnosed with psoriasis for an average of about 16 years.
Dr. Simon and associates used the baseline HR-pQCT scans to make two assessments of each patient: the presence of structural entheseal lesions (SEL) in the two metacarpal joints and the calculated volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). Their analysis showed that the number and severity of SEL were increased among patients who later developed PsA. In a multivariable model that adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, duration of psoriasis, and arthralgia, patients with any SEL had a fivefold higher rate of developing PsA, compared with patients with no SEL, reported Dr. Simon, a rheumatologist at Erlangen University Hospital.
The analysis of vBMD also showed a strong link between bone density at the entheseal sites of the two studied joints and subsequent PsA development. For every standard deviation increase in vBMD at these sites the subsequent rate of PsA incidence fell by about 67% in an analysis that controlled for the same covariants as well as presence of SEL. The same relationship between higher vBMD and a lower risk for PsA held for both total vBMD measurement and for cortical vBMD, but only at the entheseal site. Levels of vBMD at the intra-articular site of the joints had no statistically significant relationship with subsequent PsA development.
The two metrics also appeared to identify additive risks. Nearly 90% of patients with at least one SEL who also had low vBMD at the entheseal site developed PsA during follow-up, compared with about a 50% rate among patients with at least one SEL but high vBMD.
The imaging method used to run these analyses, HR-pQCT, remains for the time being a “research technique” that “is not generalizable for routine practice,” but further development of this method or of a surrogate measure might make it feasible for future widespread practice, commented Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, president of the European League Against Rheumatism and professor of rheumatology and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow.
“We’ve thought for many years that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are on a spectrum, and this work is consistent with the idea that some patients with psoriasis develop tissue involvement at entheses and joints,” Dr. McInnes said in an interview. The higher incidence of PsA seen in patients with adverse SEL and vBMD markers was in an “interesting range” that warrants further study. A next step is to run an intervention study in which patients with these adverse markers would receive an intervention randomized against placebo to see if it improved their outcomes, he suggested. Good candidate agents to study in psoriasis patients who have these adverse markers include drugs that inhibit the action of interleukin-17, drugs that target the p19 cytokine subunit of IL-23, and possibly Janus kinase inhibitor drugs.
Dr. Simon has been a consultant to AbbVie and Eli Lilly, a speaker on behalf of Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novartis. Dr. McInnes has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and he has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.
SOURCE: Simon D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33-4, Abstract OP0051.
FROM THE EULAR 2020 E-CONGRESS
TNF inhibitor plus methotrexate surpassed methotrexate monotherapy in PsA
Adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to the treatment regimen of patients with psoriatic arthritis who failed to reach minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy after 4 or more weeks had more than triple the rate of minimal disease activity after 16 weeks, compared with patients who had their methotrexate dosage escalated but received no second drug, in a multicenter, randomized study with 245 patients.
After 16 weeks, 42% of 123 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with methotrexate and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab achieved minimal disease activity, compared with 13% of 122 patients randomized to receive escalated methotrexate monotherapy to their maximally tolerated dosage or to a maximum of 25 mg/week, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
The findings are “supportive of the EULAR recommendations” for managing patients with PsA, said Dr. Coates, a rheumatologist at the University of Oxford (England). The EULAR recommendations call for starting a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis and “inadequate response to at least one [conventional synthetic] DMARD,” such as methotrexate (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;79[6]:700-12). “A proportion of patients treated with methotrexate do well, but for those struggling on methotrexate, these results support use of a TNF inhibitor. It’s a balance of cost and benefit. If TNF inhibitors were as cheap as methotrexate, I suspect that would be first line more frequently,” Dr. Coates said in an interview. In contrast, the PsA management recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology make treatment with a TNF inhibitor first line, before starting with what these guidelines call an oral small molecule, the same as a conventional synthetic DMARD such as methotrexate (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).
“It’s a well-known fact that adalimumab is more effective than methotrexate in [PsA] patients who do not respond sufficiently well to methotrexate. Patients failing on methotrexate have been escalated to a TNF inhibitor for years,” commented Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Amsterdam, and a coauthor of the EULAR PsA treatment recommendations. “In the Netherlands and in my practice, every [PsA] patient starts on methotrexate until a dosage of at least 15 mg/week, but if they don’t have sufficient response we escalate to adding a TNF inhibitor,” he said in an interview. “A significant proportion of patients with PsA respond well to moderate to higher dosages of methotrexate,” and this monotherapy with escalation of methotrexate can be safely continued for more than 3 months in many patients without the risk of “losing too much time by waiting” to start a bDMARD.
Dr. Coates said that her practice was to look for some level of response to methotrexate by 12 weeks on treatment and for achievement of minimal disease activity within 24 weeks of treatment. If these targets are not reached, she then adds a TNF inhibitor.
The CONTROL study ran at 60 sites in the United States and in 12 other countries and enrolled patients with active PsA despite treatment with methotrexate for at least 4 weeks and no history of treatment with a bDMARD. Patients received either 40 mg adalimumab every other week plus 15 mg of methotrexate weekly, or maximum-tolerated methotrexate up to 25 mg/week. The results also showed that the primary endpoint of the rate of achieved minimal disease activity seen overall in each of the two study arms was consistent in both the roughly half of patients who had been on methotrexate monotherapy for 3 months or less before entering the study as well as those who had been on initial methotrexate monotherapy for a longer period. Other secondary endpoints examined also showed significantly better responses to adding adalimumab, including a tripling of the rate at which patients achieved complete resolution of their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, which occurred in 30% of patients on the TNF inhibitor plus methotrexate and in 9% of those on methotrexate monotherapy.
The results seen in the CONTROL study with adalimumab would likely be similar using a different TNF inhibitor or an agent that’s an adalimumab biosimilar, Dr. Coates said. The only patients with PsA and not achieving minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy who should not then receive add-on treatment with a TNF inhibitor are those known to have a safety exclusion for this drug class or patients for whom the incremental cost poses a barrier, she added. In addition, patients with more substantial skin involvement may get greater benefit from a different class of bDMARD, such as a drug that inhibits interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 as recommended by the EULAR panel.
“We still get very good results with a TNF inhibitor for psoriasis, but in patients with severe psoriasis there is an argument to use a different drug,” Dr. Coates acknowledged. Skin responses with an IL-17 inhibitor or an IL-12/23 inhibitor “are far better” than with a TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Landewé. He also added the caution that longer-term use of adalimumab “may induce aggravation of PsA in a significant number of patients.”
CONTROL was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Coates has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Landewé has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33, Abstract OP0050.
Adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to the treatment regimen of patients with psoriatic arthritis who failed to reach minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy after 4 or more weeks had more than triple the rate of minimal disease activity after 16 weeks, compared with patients who had their methotrexate dosage escalated but received no second drug, in a multicenter, randomized study with 245 patients.
After 16 weeks, 42% of 123 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with methotrexate and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab achieved minimal disease activity, compared with 13% of 122 patients randomized to receive escalated methotrexate monotherapy to their maximally tolerated dosage or to a maximum of 25 mg/week, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
The findings are “supportive of the EULAR recommendations” for managing patients with PsA, said Dr. Coates, a rheumatologist at the University of Oxford (England). The EULAR recommendations call for starting a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis and “inadequate response to at least one [conventional synthetic] DMARD,” such as methotrexate (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;79[6]:700-12). “A proportion of patients treated with methotrexate do well, but for those struggling on methotrexate, these results support use of a TNF inhibitor. It’s a balance of cost and benefit. If TNF inhibitors were as cheap as methotrexate, I suspect that would be first line more frequently,” Dr. Coates said in an interview. In contrast, the PsA management recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology make treatment with a TNF inhibitor first line, before starting with what these guidelines call an oral small molecule, the same as a conventional synthetic DMARD such as methotrexate (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).
“It’s a well-known fact that adalimumab is more effective than methotrexate in [PsA] patients who do not respond sufficiently well to methotrexate. Patients failing on methotrexate have been escalated to a TNF inhibitor for years,” commented Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Amsterdam, and a coauthor of the EULAR PsA treatment recommendations. “In the Netherlands and in my practice, every [PsA] patient starts on methotrexate until a dosage of at least 15 mg/week, but if they don’t have sufficient response we escalate to adding a TNF inhibitor,” he said in an interview. “A significant proportion of patients with PsA respond well to moderate to higher dosages of methotrexate,” and this monotherapy with escalation of methotrexate can be safely continued for more than 3 months in many patients without the risk of “losing too much time by waiting” to start a bDMARD.
Dr. Coates said that her practice was to look for some level of response to methotrexate by 12 weeks on treatment and for achievement of minimal disease activity within 24 weeks of treatment. If these targets are not reached, she then adds a TNF inhibitor.
The CONTROL study ran at 60 sites in the United States and in 12 other countries and enrolled patients with active PsA despite treatment with methotrexate for at least 4 weeks and no history of treatment with a bDMARD. Patients received either 40 mg adalimumab every other week plus 15 mg of methotrexate weekly, or maximum-tolerated methotrexate up to 25 mg/week. The results also showed that the primary endpoint of the rate of achieved minimal disease activity seen overall in each of the two study arms was consistent in both the roughly half of patients who had been on methotrexate monotherapy for 3 months or less before entering the study as well as those who had been on initial methotrexate monotherapy for a longer period. Other secondary endpoints examined also showed significantly better responses to adding adalimumab, including a tripling of the rate at which patients achieved complete resolution of their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, which occurred in 30% of patients on the TNF inhibitor plus methotrexate and in 9% of those on methotrexate monotherapy.
The results seen in the CONTROL study with adalimumab would likely be similar using a different TNF inhibitor or an agent that’s an adalimumab biosimilar, Dr. Coates said. The only patients with PsA and not achieving minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy who should not then receive add-on treatment with a TNF inhibitor are those known to have a safety exclusion for this drug class or patients for whom the incremental cost poses a barrier, she added. In addition, patients with more substantial skin involvement may get greater benefit from a different class of bDMARD, such as a drug that inhibits interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 as recommended by the EULAR panel.
“We still get very good results with a TNF inhibitor for psoriasis, but in patients with severe psoriasis there is an argument to use a different drug,” Dr. Coates acknowledged. Skin responses with an IL-17 inhibitor or an IL-12/23 inhibitor “are far better” than with a TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Landewé. He also added the caution that longer-term use of adalimumab “may induce aggravation of PsA in a significant number of patients.”
CONTROL was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Coates has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Landewé has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33, Abstract OP0050.
Adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to the treatment regimen of patients with psoriatic arthritis who failed to reach minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy after 4 or more weeks had more than triple the rate of minimal disease activity after 16 weeks, compared with patients who had their methotrexate dosage escalated but received no second drug, in a multicenter, randomized study with 245 patients.
After 16 weeks, 42% of 123 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with methotrexate and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab achieved minimal disease activity, compared with 13% of 122 patients randomized to receive escalated methotrexate monotherapy to their maximally tolerated dosage or to a maximum of 25 mg/week, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.
The findings are “supportive of the EULAR recommendations” for managing patients with PsA, said Dr. Coates, a rheumatologist at the University of Oxford (England). The EULAR recommendations call for starting a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis and “inadequate response to at least one [conventional synthetic] DMARD,” such as methotrexate (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;79[6]:700-12). “A proportion of patients treated with methotrexate do well, but for those struggling on methotrexate, these results support use of a TNF inhibitor. It’s a balance of cost and benefit. If TNF inhibitors were as cheap as methotrexate, I suspect that would be first line more frequently,” Dr. Coates said in an interview. In contrast, the PsA management recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology make treatment with a TNF inhibitor first line, before starting with what these guidelines call an oral small molecule, the same as a conventional synthetic DMARD such as methotrexate (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).
“It’s a well-known fact that adalimumab is more effective than methotrexate in [PsA] patients who do not respond sufficiently well to methotrexate. Patients failing on methotrexate have been escalated to a TNF inhibitor for years,” commented Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Amsterdam, and a coauthor of the EULAR PsA treatment recommendations. “In the Netherlands and in my practice, every [PsA] patient starts on methotrexate until a dosage of at least 15 mg/week, but if they don’t have sufficient response we escalate to adding a TNF inhibitor,” he said in an interview. “A significant proportion of patients with PsA respond well to moderate to higher dosages of methotrexate,” and this monotherapy with escalation of methotrexate can be safely continued for more than 3 months in many patients without the risk of “losing too much time by waiting” to start a bDMARD.
Dr. Coates said that her practice was to look for some level of response to methotrexate by 12 weeks on treatment and for achievement of minimal disease activity within 24 weeks of treatment. If these targets are not reached, she then adds a TNF inhibitor.
The CONTROL study ran at 60 sites in the United States and in 12 other countries and enrolled patients with active PsA despite treatment with methotrexate for at least 4 weeks and no history of treatment with a bDMARD. Patients received either 40 mg adalimumab every other week plus 15 mg of methotrexate weekly, or maximum-tolerated methotrexate up to 25 mg/week. The results also showed that the primary endpoint of the rate of achieved minimal disease activity seen overall in each of the two study arms was consistent in both the roughly half of patients who had been on methotrexate monotherapy for 3 months or less before entering the study as well as those who had been on initial methotrexate monotherapy for a longer period. Other secondary endpoints examined also showed significantly better responses to adding adalimumab, including a tripling of the rate at which patients achieved complete resolution of their Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, which occurred in 30% of patients on the TNF inhibitor plus methotrexate and in 9% of those on methotrexate monotherapy.
The results seen in the CONTROL study with adalimumab would likely be similar using a different TNF inhibitor or an agent that’s an adalimumab biosimilar, Dr. Coates said. The only patients with PsA and not achieving minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy who should not then receive add-on treatment with a TNF inhibitor are those known to have a safety exclusion for this drug class or patients for whom the incremental cost poses a barrier, she added. In addition, patients with more substantial skin involvement may get greater benefit from a different class of bDMARD, such as a drug that inhibits interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 as recommended by the EULAR panel.
“We still get very good results with a TNF inhibitor for psoriasis, but in patients with severe psoriasis there is an argument to use a different drug,” Dr. Coates acknowledged. Skin responses with an IL-17 inhibitor or an IL-12/23 inhibitor “are far better” than with a TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Landewé. He also added the caution that longer-term use of adalimumab “may induce aggravation of PsA in a significant number of patients.”
CONTROL was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Coates has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Landewé has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33, Abstract OP0050.
FROM EULAR 2020 E-CONGRESS
Biologics yield low rates of skin clearance in real-world psoriasis study
The study was published in May in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
High efficacy rates, which include PASI 100 scores, have been reported in randomized trials of biologics that include anti–interleukin (IL)–17A therapies (secukinumab and ixekizumab), anti–IL-17A–receptor therapies (brodalumab), and anti–IL-23 therapies (guselkumab and risankizumab), but information on rates in real-world cohorts has been limited. “Real-world evidence provided by registries is only beginning to emerge, and efficacy data have mostly been derived from clinical trials,” senior author Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor for translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), said in an interview.
He and his coinvestigators conducted the PSO-BIO-REAL (Plaque Psoriasis Treated With Biologics in a Real World Setting) prospective trial in five countries, to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over a year’s time following administration of a biologic therapy. Patients were 18 years of age or older and had either started a biologic for the first time (biologic-naive) or were transitioning to another biologic (biologic-experienced).
Among 846 participants, 32% were in the United States, followed by France (28%), Italy (22%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Germany (8%). Investigators estimated the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) 6 months after starting a biologic as a primary objective, and as secondary objectives, PASI 100 scores at 1 year and PASI 100 maintenance from 6 to 12 months.
Nearly 200 patients withdrew during the course of the study, and 108 switched treatments. Therapies varied among patients: 61% received an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent such as etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol as an initial biologic treatment, 30% received an anti–IL-12/-23 agent (ustekinumab), and 9% received an anti-IL-17 agent (secukinumab). Additionally, 23% received a concomitant psoriasis medication.
PASI assessments were completed in 603 patients at 6 months, and 522 patients at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months respectively, 23% and 26% of the patients had achieved a PASI 100 score. Investigators noted that the rate of complete skin clearance declined as the number of baseline comorbidities and the number of prior biologics increased.
Biologic-experienced patients at study entry had lower PASI 100 response rates (about 20% at 6 and 12 months) than the biologic-naive patients (25% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months). Dr. Reich pointed out that many biologic-experienced patients often have active disease, despite previous use of biologics, and “they’re likely to represent a more difficult-to-treat population.” Factors such as convenience, safety, and the fact that more complicated patients – those with weight issues, more comorbidities and pretreatments, and lower compliance – are treated in real life than in clinical trials, are likely to influence lack of response in real-world data, Dr. Reich said.
The study’s enrollment period took place from 2014 to 2015, so it did not include patients on newer biologics such as brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and tildrakizumab. “Some of these newer therapies have shown greater efficacy than drugs such as ustekinumab and etanercept in clinical trials, and patients are more likely to achieve complete skin clearance. Therefore, real-world rates of complete clearance may have improved since this study concluded,” the investigators pointed out.
Possible limitations of the study include selection bias and possible confounders, they noted.
The study was sponsored by Amgen/AstraZeneca; the manuscript was sponsored by LEO Pharma. One author was an AstraZeneca employee, two are LEO pharma employees, one author had no disclosures, and the remaining authors, including Dr. Reich, disclosed serving as an adviser, paid speaker, consultant, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Seneschal J et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16568.
The study was published in May in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
High efficacy rates, which include PASI 100 scores, have been reported in randomized trials of biologics that include anti–interleukin (IL)–17A therapies (secukinumab and ixekizumab), anti–IL-17A–receptor therapies (brodalumab), and anti–IL-23 therapies (guselkumab and risankizumab), but information on rates in real-world cohorts has been limited. “Real-world evidence provided by registries is only beginning to emerge, and efficacy data have mostly been derived from clinical trials,” senior author Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor for translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), said in an interview.
He and his coinvestigators conducted the PSO-BIO-REAL (Plaque Psoriasis Treated With Biologics in a Real World Setting) prospective trial in five countries, to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over a year’s time following administration of a biologic therapy. Patients were 18 years of age or older and had either started a biologic for the first time (biologic-naive) or were transitioning to another biologic (biologic-experienced).
Among 846 participants, 32% were in the United States, followed by France (28%), Italy (22%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Germany (8%). Investigators estimated the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) 6 months after starting a biologic as a primary objective, and as secondary objectives, PASI 100 scores at 1 year and PASI 100 maintenance from 6 to 12 months.
Nearly 200 patients withdrew during the course of the study, and 108 switched treatments. Therapies varied among patients: 61% received an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent such as etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol as an initial biologic treatment, 30% received an anti–IL-12/-23 agent (ustekinumab), and 9% received an anti-IL-17 agent (secukinumab). Additionally, 23% received a concomitant psoriasis medication.
PASI assessments were completed in 603 patients at 6 months, and 522 patients at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months respectively, 23% and 26% of the patients had achieved a PASI 100 score. Investigators noted that the rate of complete skin clearance declined as the number of baseline comorbidities and the number of prior biologics increased.
Biologic-experienced patients at study entry had lower PASI 100 response rates (about 20% at 6 and 12 months) than the biologic-naive patients (25% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months). Dr. Reich pointed out that many biologic-experienced patients often have active disease, despite previous use of biologics, and “they’re likely to represent a more difficult-to-treat population.” Factors such as convenience, safety, and the fact that more complicated patients – those with weight issues, more comorbidities and pretreatments, and lower compliance – are treated in real life than in clinical trials, are likely to influence lack of response in real-world data, Dr. Reich said.
The study’s enrollment period took place from 2014 to 2015, so it did not include patients on newer biologics such as brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and tildrakizumab. “Some of these newer therapies have shown greater efficacy than drugs such as ustekinumab and etanercept in clinical trials, and patients are more likely to achieve complete skin clearance. Therefore, real-world rates of complete clearance may have improved since this study concluded,” the investigators pointed out.
Possible limitations of the study include selection bias and possible confounders, they noted.
The study was sponsored by Amgen/AstraZeneca; the manuscript was sponsored by LEO Pharma. One author was an AstraZeneca employee, two are LEO pharma employees, one author had no disclosures, and the remaining authors, including Dr. Reich, disclosed serving as an adviser, paid speaker, consultant, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Seneschal J et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16568.
The study was published in May in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
High efficacy rates, which include PASI 100 scores, have been reported in randomized trials of biologics that include anti–interleukin (IL)–17A therapies (secukinumab and ixekizumab), anti–IL-17A–receptor therapies (brodalumab), and anti–IL-23 therapies (guselkumab and risankizumab), but information on rates in real-world cohorts has been limited. “Real-world evidence provided by registries is only beginning to emerge, and efficacy data have mostly been derived from clinical trials,” senior author Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor for translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), said in an interview.
He and his coinvestigators conducted the PSO-BIO-REAL (Plaque Psoriasis Treated With Biologics in a Real World Setting) prospective trial in five countries, to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over a year’s time following administration of a biologic therapy. Patients were 18 years of age or older and had either started a biologic for the first time (biologic-naive) or were transitioning to another biologic (biologic-experienced).
Among 846 participants, 32% were in the United States, followed by France (28%), Italy (22%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Germany (8%). Investigators estimated the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) 6 months after starting a biologic as a primary objective, and as secondary objectives, PASI 100 scores at 1 year and PASI 100 maintenance from 6 to 12 months.
Nearly 200 patients withdrew during the course of the study, and 108 switched treatments. Therapies varied among patients: 61% received an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent such as etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol as an initial biologic treatment, 30% received an anti–IL-12/-23 agent (ustekinumab), and 9% received an anti-IL-17 agent (secukinumab). Additionally, 23% received a concomitant psoriasis medication.
PASI assessments were completed in 603 patients at 6 months, and 522 patients at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months respectively, 23% and 26% of the patients had achieved a PASI 100 score. Investigators noted that the rate of complete skin clearance declined as the number of baseline comorbidities and the number of prior biologics increased.
Biologic-experienced patients at study entry had lower PASI 100 response rates (about 20% at 6 and 12 months) than the biologic-naive patients (25% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months). Dr. Reich pointed out that many biologic-experienced patients often have active disease, despite previous use of biologics, and “they’re likely to represent a more difficult-to-treat population.” Factors such as convenience, safety, and the fact that more complicated patients – those with weight issues, more comorbidities and pretreatments, and lower compliance – are treated in real life than in clinical trials, are likely to influence lack of response in real-world data, Dr. Reich said.
The study’s enrollment period took place from 2014 to 2015, so it did not include patients on newer biologics such as brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and tildrakizumab. “Some of these newer therapies have shown greater efficacy than drugs such as ustekinumab and etanercept in clinical trials, and patients are more likely to achieve complete skin clearance. Therefore, real-world rates of complete clearance may have improved since this study concluded,” the investigators pointed out.
Possible limitations of the study include selection bias and possible confounders, they noted.
The study was sponsored by Amgen/AstraZeneca; the manuscript was sponsored by LEO Pharma. One author was an AstraZeneca employee, two are LEO pharma employees, one author had no disclosures, and the remaining authors, including Dr. Reich, disclosed serving as an adviser, paid speaker, consultant, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCE: Seneschal J et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16568.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY AND VENEREOLOGY
Biologics better solo than with methotrexate in psoriatic arthritis
Ustekinumab or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) are better used alone than with methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis suggest the results of PsABio (A Study on Assessment of STELARA and Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Therapies in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis), a large, ongoing, prospective observational study.
The percentages of patients achieving multiple psoriatic arthritis disease activity outcome measures at 6 months were higher if biologic monotherapy was used rather than a biologic in combination with methotrexate.
For example, minimal disease activity (MDA) was achieved by 27.5% of patients taking ustekinumab as monotherapy and by 32.1% of those taking a TNFi alone. When methotrexate was used in combination, the respective percentages of patients achieving MDA were 23.7% and 27.8%.
A similar pattern was seen for very-low disease activity (VLDA), with 9.8% of patients in the ustekinumab monotherapy arm and 12% of those in the TNFi monotherapy arm achieving this target, compared with 5.7% and 5.4% when these drugs were combined with methotrexate.
MDA is defined as meeting five or more cutoffs for seven domains of disease activity, and VLDA for all seven: 0-1 tender joints, 0-1 swollen joints, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 1 or less or body surface area involved 3% or less, 0-1 tender entheseal points, Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 0.5 or less, patient global disease activity visual analog scale score of 20 or lower, and patient pain visual analog scale score of 15 or lower.
Other outcome measures used that showed no advantage of adding methotrexate to these biologics were the Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity and remission scores, the patient acceptable symptoms rate of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease Questionnaire, and improvement in skin involvement.
“Patients were no more likely to achieve lower disease activity or a remission target having received methotrexate than they did just on the biologic drug on its own,” Stefan Siebert, MBBCh, PhD, one of the PsABio investigators, said in an interview.
Dr. Siebert, who is clinical senior lecturer in inflammation and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), was scheduled to present the findings at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. The meeting was canceled because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Abstracts and ePosters from the meeting have since been released in a supplement to Rheumatology and via the BSR’s conference app.
First data for ustekinumab
“There certainly doesn’t appear to be any added benefit from using methotrexate on a group level in patients getting ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Siebert said. “We’ve looked at everything,” he emphasized, and “none of the single domains or composite measures were improved by the addition of methotrexate. I think we knew that for TNF inhibitors, but the key thing is we’ve never known that for ustekinumab, and this is the first study to show that.”
Indeed, the findings match up with those from the SEAM-PsA (Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) study in which patients who were treated with the TNFi etanercept as monotherapy did much better than those given the TNFi in combination with methotrexate or methotrexate alone. While not a randomized trial, PsABio now shows that the same is true for ustekinumab.
Obviously, there are some clear differences between a clinical trial and an observational study such as PsABio. For one thing, there was no randomization and patients taking methotrexate were presumably doing so for good reason, Dr. Siebert said. Secondly, there was no methotrexate-only arm.
PsABio recruited patients who were starting treatment with either ustekinumab or a new TNFi as first-, second-, or third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD). “These are all people starting on a biologic, so they’ve already got severe disease and have failed methotrexate on some level. So everything we’ve done is biologic without methotrexate or biologic with methotrexate,” Dr. Siebert explained. Patients may not have been taking methotrexate for a variety of reasons, such as inefficacy or side effects, so PsABio “doesn’t tell us anything about methotrexate on its own.”
Time to rethink ingrained methotrexate use
The rationale for using methotrexate in combination with biologics in psoriatic arthritis comes from its long-standing use in rheumatoid arthritis. Much of what is advocated in guidelines comes from experience in RA, Dr. Siebert said.
“In rheumatoid arthritis, we know that the TNF inhibitors work much better if you use methotrexate, that’s a given,” he noted. “We’ve been trained that you have to have methotrexate to have a biologic. However, PsABio, together with other studies, show that you don’t have to, and you should have a good reason to add methotrexate.”
Individual patients may still benefit from methotrexate use, but the decision to treat all patients the same is not supported by the current evidence. “It’s good that it shows that, actually, once you get someone on a decent biologic, it’s working: It’s doing what it ‘says on the tin’ for a lot of patients. I really think that is the key message, here, that you don’t have to; this reassures clinicians and actually makes them think ‘should this patient be on methotrexate?’ ” Dr. Siebert said.
The PsABio study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Siebert has acted as a consultant to and received research funding from Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Celgene. He has also acted as a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa110.023, Abstract O24.
Ustekinumab or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) are better used alone than with methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis suggest the results of PsABio (A Study on Assessment of STELARA and Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Therapies in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis), a large, ongoing, prospective observational study.
The percentages of patients achieving multiple psoriatic arthritis disease activity outcome measures at 6 months were higher if biologic monotherapy was used rather than a biologic in combination with methotrexate.
For example, minimal disease activity (MDA) was achieved by 27.5% of patients taking ustekinumab as monotherapy and by 32.1% of those taking a TNFi alone. When methotrexate was used in combination, the respective percentages of patients achieving MDA were 23.7% and 27.8%.
A similar pattern was seen for very-low disease activity (VLDA), with 9.8% of patients in the ustekinumab monotherapy arm and 12% of those in the TNFi monotherapy arm achieving this target, compared with 5.7% and 5.4% when these drugs were combined with methotrexate.
MDA is defined as meeting five or more cutoffs for seven domains of disease activity, and VLDA for all seven: 0-1 tender joints, 0-1 swollen joints, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 1 or less or body surface area involved 3% or less, 0-1 tender entheseal points, Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 0.5 or less, patient global disease activity visual analog scale score of 20 or lower, and patient pain visual analog scale score of 15 or lower.
Other outcome measures used that showed no advantage of adding methotrexate to these biologics were the Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity and remission scores, the patient acceptable symptoms rate of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease Questionnaire, and improvement in skin involvement.
“Patients were no more likely to achieve lower disease activity or a remission target having received methotrexate than they did just on the biologic drug on its own,” Stefan Siebert, MBBCh, PhD, one of the PsABio investigators, said in an interview.
Dr. Siebert, who is clinical senior lecturer in inflammation and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), was scheduled to present the findings at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. The meeting was canceled because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Abstracts and ePosters from the meeting have since been released in a supplement to Rheumatology and via the BSR’s conference app.
First data for ustekinumab
“There certainly doesn’t appear to be any added benefit from using methotrexate on a group level in patients getting ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Siebert said. “We’ve looked at everything,” he emphasized, and “none of the single domains or composite measures were improved by the addition of methotrexate. I think we knew that for TNF inhibitors, but the key thing is we’ve never known that for ustekinumab, and this is the first study to show that.”
Indeed, the findings match up with those from the SEAM-PsA (Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) study in which patients who were treated with the TNFi etanercept as monotherapy did much better than those given the TNFi in combination with methotrexate or methotrexate alone. While not a randomized trial, PsABio now shows that the same is true for ustekinumab.
Obviously, there are some clear differences between a clinical trial and an observational study such as PsABio. For one thing, there was no randomization and patients taking methotrexate were presumably doing so for good reason, Dr. Siebert said. Secondly, there was no methotrexate-only arm.
PsABio recruited patients who were starting treatment with either ustekinumab or a new TNFi as first-, second-, or third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD). “These are all people starting on a biologic, so they’ve already got severe disease and have failed methotrexate on some level. So everything we’ve done is biologic without methotrexate or biologic with methotrexate,” Dr. Siebert explained. Patients may not have been taking methotrexate for a variety of reasons, such as inefficacy or side effects, so PsABio “doesn’t tell us anything about methotrexate on its own.”
Time to rethink ingrained methotrexate use
The rationale for using methotrexate in combination with biologics in psoriatic arthritis comes from its long-standing use in rheumatoid arthritis. Much of what is advocated in guidelines comes from experience in RA, Dr. Siebert said.
“In rheumatoid arthritis, we know that the TNF inhibitors work much better if you use methotrexate, that’s a given,” he noted. “We’ve been trained that you have to have methotrexate to have a biologic. However, PsABio, together with other studies, show that you don’t have to, and you should have a good reason to add methotrexate.”
Individual patients may still benefit from methotrexate use, but the decision to treat all patients the same is not supported by the current evidence. “It’s good that it shows that, actually, once you get someone on a decent biologic, it’s working: It’s doing what it ‘says on the tin’ for a lot of patients. I really think that is the key message, here, that you don’t have to; this reassures clinicians and actually makes them think ‘should this patient be on methotrexate?’ ” Dr. Siebert said.
The PsABio study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Siebert has acted as a consultant to and received research funding from Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Celgene. He has also acted as a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa110.023, Abstract O24.
Ustekinumab or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) are better used alone than with methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis suggest the results of PsABio (A Study on Assessment of STELARA and Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Therapies in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis), a large, ongoing, prospective observational study.
The percentages of patients achieving multiple psoriatic arthritis disease activity outcome measures at 6 months were higher if biologic monotherapy was used rather than a biologic in combination with methotrexate.
For example, minimal disease activity (MDA) was achieved by 27.5% of patients taking ustekinumab as monotherapy and by 32.1% of those taking a TNFi alone. When methotrexate was used in combination, the respective percentages of patients achieving MDA were 23.7% and 27.8%.
A similar pattern was seen for very-low disease activity (VLDA), with 9.8% of patients in the ustekinumab monotherapy arm and 12% of those in the TNFi monotherapy arm achieving this target, compared with 5.7% and 5.4% when these drugs were combined with methotrexate.
MDA is defined as meeting five or more cutoffs for seven domains of disease activity, and VLDA for all seven: 0-1 tender joints, 0-1 swollen joints, Psoriasis Area Severity Index 1 or less or body surface area involved 3% or less, 0-1 tender entheseal points, Health Assessment Questionnaire score of 0.5 or less, patient global disease activity visual analog scale score of 20 or lower, and patient pain visual analog scale score of 15 or lower.
Other outcome measures used that showed no advantage of adding methotrexate to these biologics were the Clinical Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis low disease activity and remission scores, the patient acceptable symptoms rate of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease Questionnaire, and improvement in skin involvement.
“Patients were no more likely to achieve lower disease activity or a remission target having received methotrexate than they did just on the biologic drug on its own,” Stefan Siebert, MBBCh, PhD, one of the PsABio investigators, said in an interview.
Dr. Siebert, who is clinical senior lecturer in inflammation and rheumatology at the University of Glasgow (Scotland), was scheduled to present the findings at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference. The meeting was canceled because of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Abstracts and ePosters from the meeting have since been released in a supplement to Rheumatology and via the BSR’s conference app.
First data for ustekinumab
“There certainly doesn’t appear to be any added benefit from using methotrexate on a group level in patients getting ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Siebert said. “We’ve looked at everything,” he emphasized, and “none of the single domains or composite measures were improved by the addition of methotrexate. I think we knew that for TNF inhibitors, but the key thing is we’ve never known that for ustekinumab, and this is the first study to show that.”
Indeed, the findings match up with those from the SEAM-PsA (Etanercept and Methotrexate in Subjects with Psoriatic Arthritis) study in which patients who were treated with the TNFi etanercept as monotherapy did much better than those given the TNFi in combination with methotrexate or methotrexate alone. While not a randomized trial, PsABio now shows that the same is true for ustekinumab.
Obviously, there are some clear differences between a clinical trial and an observational study such as PsABio. For one thing, there was no randomization and patients taking methotrexate were presumably doing so for good reason, Dr. Siebert said. Secondly, there was no methotrexate-only arm.
PsABio recruited patients who were starting treatment with either ustekinumab or a new TNFi as first-, second-, or third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic therapy (DMARD). “These are all people starting on a biologic, so they’ve already got severe disease and have failed methotrexate on some level. So everything we’ve done is biologic without methotrexate or biologic with methotrexate,” Dr. Siebert explained. Patients may not have been taking methotrexate for a variety of reasons, such as inefficacy or side effects, so PsABio “doesn’t tell us anything about methotrexate on its own.”
Time to rethink ingrained methotrexate use
The rationale for using methotrexate in combination with biologics in psoriatic arthritis comes from its long-standing use in rheumatoid arthritis. Much of what is advocated in guidelines comes from experience in RA, Dr. Siebert said.
“In rheumatoid arthritis, we know that the TNF inhibitors work much better if you use methotrexate, that’s a given,” he noted. “We’ve been trained that you have to have methotrexate to have a biologic. However, PsABio, together with other studies, show that you don’t have to, and you should have a good reason to add methotrexate.”
Individual patients may still benefit from methotrexate use, but the decision to treat all patients the same is not supported by the current evidence. “It’s good that it shows that, actually, once you get someone on a decent biologic, it’s working: It’s doing what it ‘says on the tin’ for a lot of patients. I really think that is the key message, here, that you don’t have to; this reassures clinicians and actually makes them think ‘should this patient be on methotrexate?’ ” Dr. Siebert said.
The PsABio study was funded by Janssen. Dr. Siebert has acted as a consultant to and received research funding from Janssen, UCB, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Celgene. He has also acted as a consultant for AbbVie and received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb.
SOURCE: Siebert S et al. Rheumatology. 2020;59(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa110.023, Abstract O24.
FROM BSR 2020
Financial incentives affect the adoption of biosimilars
during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.
The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.
Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
An examination of pharmacy data
The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.
The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).
Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost
The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.
Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.
In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.
Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...
“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”
The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”
European governments incentivize use of biosimilars
Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.
In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.
Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.
SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.
during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.
The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.
Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
An examination of pharmacy data
The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.
The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).
Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost
The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.
Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.
In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.
Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...
“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”
The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”
European governments incentivize use of biosimilars
Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.
In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.
Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.
SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.
during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.
The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.
Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
An examination of pharmacy data
The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.
The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).
Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost
The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.
Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.
In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.
Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...
“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”
The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”
European governments incentivize use of biosimilars
Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.
In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.
Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.
SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Genome study examines heritability of psoriatic disease subtypes
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
FROM SCIENTIFIC REPORTS