Rheumatology News

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors reduce both spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the effects take time.

According to data from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), it could take 2-4 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitor treatment before x-rays will show any sign of a benefit in either the spine or sacroiliac joints (SIJ).

“The association between anti-TNF treatment and the retardation of radiographic spinal progression in spondyloarthritis appears to be time-shifted,” GESPIC study investigator Denis Poddubnyy, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reporting the spinal findings, Dr. Poddubnyy, who is head of the rheumatology department at Campus Benjamin Franklin of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin noted that “at least 4 years of observation is required” to see an effect of TNF inhibitors on new bone formation. “This might be related to the intermediate and long-lasting process of bone repair that follows the resolution of inflammation and precedes the development of new bone,” he suggested.

The effect on the SIJ may precede the spinal damage, so it’s important to look at how anti-inflammatory treatment might affect the SIJ, Dr. Poddubnyy said in an interview. Results from the SIJ analysis, which were presented by Murat Torgutalp, MD, suggested that there might be a 2-year time lag between TNFi treatment and being able to see something on x-rays.

“Everybody in the past focused on the spine, considering that spinal changes are functionally more relevant than changes in the SIJ,” Dr. Poddubnyy observed.

Structural damage in the spine and SIJ in radiographic axSpA probably occur by different processes, he explained. While it’s more to do with new bone formation in the spine, it’s more to do with erosive damage followed by repair in the SIJ. “It is very likely that in the majority of patients we see that those two processes are somehow disconnected in time,” he suggested.

The GESPIC cohort provides a good base from which to examine the effects of TNF inhibitors on radiographic progression in patients with axSpA for several reasons, observed Dr. Poddubnyy. For one it was established in 2000, so “well before the introduction of TNF-alpha inhibitors.” That means that almost all patients would have been put on TNF inhibitors while enrolled in the cohort, he said, “so we could really follow up them prospectively for a few years.” In fact, just nine patients had been treated with TNF inhibitors at baseline.

Spinal findings

Although TNF inhibitors are widely accepted to be effective anti-inflammatory drugs that can relieve patients’ spinal symptoms, there were inconclusive data on whether they can also have an impact on radiographic progression.

To look at the possible immediate or later effect of TNF inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression, the GESPIC investigators looked at sets of radiographs, taken at least 2 years apart over a 10-year period, from 266 patients, 77 of whom who had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for at least 12 months or more. Overall, there were 103 2-year intervals covered by TNF inhibitor treatment of any duration, and 78 intervals in which treatment had lasted for at least 12 months.

“This cohort included patients with quite early disease, including both nonradiographic and radiographic forms,” Dr. Poddubnyy said, adding that some patients had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for up to 10 years.

While there were no significant changes in radiographic progression as measured using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) between patients who had and who had not received at least 12 months’ TNF inhibitor therapy in the first 2 years, there was a substantial difference after 4 years.

The mSASSS change in scores over 2 years in patients who were and were not treated with a TNF inhibitor for 12 months or more were a respective 0.35 and 0.81 (P = .047) considering treatment in the previous 2-year treatment period, and 0.33 and 0.77 (also P = .047) considering treatment in the prior 2-year treatment period and the current 2-year period.

“Our interpretation is that within the first 2 years we see a resolution of inflammation, a process of repair, maybe even a process of bone formation, but then if you continue this inflammation control for longer than 2 years, then we see the effect on structural damage,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

SIJ findings

The SIJ analysis included 301 patients who had at least two sets of radiographs taken every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up period, 87 (28.9%) of whom had been treated with at least one TNF inhibitor during follow-up.

Radiographic SIJ progression was defined as the change in the sacroiliitis sum score over 2 years. Calculations considered both the current 2-year period and the previous 2-year period, as well as any use of TNF inhibitors or more than 12 months’ use.

There were no significant differences in sacroiliitis sum scores comparing people who were and were not treated with TNF inhibitors for at least 12 months in the current 2-year period. However, when the previous 2-year period was looked at there was a significant difference in the score between those who had and had not been treated for 12 or more months (0.15 vs. 0.27, respectively; P = .024).

“These data indicate that TNF inhibitors have a late effect,” Dr. Torgutalp said. “You cannot observe the effect of the TNF inhibitor on radiographic progression in the same interval, you have to wait to see this effect in the next interval,” he explained. That means that when a patient uses a TNF inhibitor, you must wait to see the effect on SIJ progression in the subsequent 2 years, he qualified.

Lessons for practice

“If we control inflammation, we might control structural damage progression,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

If this is the case, then it is likely that other drugs that control inflammation in axSpA will have a similar effect, such as those that target interleukin-17 or Janus kinases. This is something in the future to look at in the GESPIC cohort once enough patient-years of data are available.

Early treatment is probably important, Dr. Poddubnyy suggested, “because in patients with early disease we can expect not that much structural damage at baseline.” Starting treatment early, at the inflammatory stage rather than at the stage where there was a lot of damage already there, could yield better results, he proposed.

“As a clinician, as a researcher, I would be really interested in demonstrating in a prospective, clinical trial that treating patients to target, achieving a remission, would be associated with retardation of structural damage progression. This has only been shown in observational studies so far, so this is an open question.”

Questions on adjustments made for confounding factors

Questions on the spinal presentation included whether there were any differences in NSAID use, to which Dr. Poddubnyy responded, “Patients on TNF inhibitors normally reduce NSAIDs. We adjusted, therefore, for NSAID use.”

The SIJ presentation garnered more questioning. Dr. Torgutalp qualified that both radiographic and nonradiographic patients had been included in the analysis, and “we observe the same effect.”

Asked how clinically relevant the findings were, he noted that, “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first data for sacroiliac joint progression.” The data for spinal progression seem to “reconcile the results from previous investigators,” where there had been some conflicting data on whether 2 or 4 years’ TNF-inhibitor therapy had any effect on radiographic progression.

“I don’t think you’ve adjusted for the baseline level of damage of the SIJ?” queried Pedro Machado, MD, of University College London Hospital. “As you know, in the spine, but also at the SIJ level, the baseline level of damage is usually one of the strongest predictors of further damage.”

This is not something that was adjusted for, Dr. Torgutalp conceded. “We will do it for further analysis,” he said.

Since 2010, GESPIC has been supported by grants from AbbVie. Dr. Poddubnyy reported financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Torgutalp had no relevant disclosures.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors reduce both spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the effects take time.

According to data from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), it could take 2-4 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitor treatment before x-rays will show any sign of a benefit in either the spine or sacroiliac joints (SIJ).

“The association between anti-TNF treatment and the retardation of radiographic spinal progression in spondyloarthritis appears to be time-shifted,” GESPIC study investigator Denis Poddubnyy, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reporting the spinal findings, Dr. Poddubnyy, who is head of the rheumatology department at Campus Benjamin Franklin of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin noted that “at least 4 years of observation is required” to see an effect of TNF inhibitors on new bone formation. “This might be related to the intermediate and long-lasting process of bone repair that follows the resolution of inflammation and precedes the development of new bone,” he suggested.

The effect on the SIJ may precede the spinal damage, so it’s important to look at how anti-inflammatory treatment might affect the SIJ, Dr. Poddubnyy said in an interview. Results from the SIJ analysis, which were presented by Murat Torgutalp, MD, suggested that there might be a 2-year time lag between TNFi treatment and being able to see something on x-rays.

“Everybody in the past focused on the spine, considering that spinal changes are functionally more relevant than changes in the SIJ,” Dr. Poddubnyy observed.

Structural damage in the spine and SIJ in radiographic axSpA probably occur by different processes, he explained. While it’s more to do with new bone formation in the spine, it’s more to do with erosive damage followed by repair in the SIJ. “It is very likely that in the majority of patients we see that those two processes are somehow disconnected in time,” he suggested.

The GESPIC cohort provides a good base from which to examine the effects of TNF inhibitors on radiographic progression in patients with axSpA for several reasons, observed Dr. Poddubnyy. For one it was established in 2000, so “well before the introduction of TNF-alpha inhibitors.” That means that almost all patients would have been put on TNF inhibitors while enrolled in the cohort, he said, “so we could really follow up them prospectively for a few years.” In fact, just nine patients had been treated with TNF inhibitors at baseline.

Spinal findings

Although TNF inhibitors are widely accepted to be effective anti-inflammatory drugs that can relieve patients’ spinal symptoms, there were inconclusive data on whether they can also have an impact on radiographic progression.

To look at the possible immediate or later effect of TNF inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression, the GESPIC investigators looked at sets of radiographs, taken at least 2 years apart over a 10-year period, from 266 patients, 77 of whom who had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for at least 12 months or more. Overall, there were 103 2-year intervals covered by TNF inhibitor treatment of any duration, and 78 intervals in which treatment had lasted for at least 12 months.

“This cohort included patients with quite early disease, including both nonradiographic and radiographic forms,” Dr. Poddubnyy said, adding that some patients had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for up to 10 years.

While there were no significant changes in radiographic progression as measured using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) between patients who had and who had not received at least 12 months’ TNF inhibitor therapy in the first 2 years, there was a substantial difference after 4 years.

The mSASSS change in scores over 2 years in patients who were and were not treated with a TNF inhibitor for 12 months or more were a respective 0.35 and 0.81 (P = .047) considering treatment in the previous 2-year treatment period, and 0.33 and 0.77 (also P = .047) considering treatment in the prior 2-year treatment period and the current 2-year period.

“Our interpretation is that within the first 2 years we see a resolution of inflammation, a process of repair, maybe even a process of bone formation, but then if you continue this inflammation control for longer than 2 years, then we see the effect on structural damage,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

SIJ findings

The SIJ analysis included 301 patients who had at least two sets of radiographs taken every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up period, 87 (28.9%) of whom had been treated with at least one TNF inhibitor during follow-up.

Radiographic SIJ progression was defined as the change in the sacroiliitis sum score over 2 years. Calculations considered both the current 2-year period and the previous 2-year period, as well as any use of TNF inhibitors or more than 12 months’ use.

There were no significant differences in sacroiliitis sum scores comparing people who were and were not treated with TNF inhibitors for at least 12 months in the current 2-year period. However, when the previous 2-year period was looked at there was a significant difference in the score between those who had and had not been treated for 12 or more months (0.15 vs. 0.27, respectively; P = .024).

“These data indicate that TNF inhibitors have a late effect,” Dr. Torgutalp said. “You cannot observe the effect of the TNF inhibitor on radiographic progression in the same interval, you have to wait to see this effect in the next interval,” he explained. That means that when a patient uses a TNF inhibitor, you must wait to see the effect on SIJ progression in the subsequent 2 years, he qualified.

Lessons for practice

“If we control inflammation, we might control structural damage progression,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

If this is the case, then it is likely that other drugs that control inflammation in axSpA will have a similar effect, such as those that target interleukin-17 or Janus kinases. This is something in the future to look at in the GESPIC cohort once enough patient-years of data are available.

Early treatment is probably important, Dr. Poddubnyy suggested, “because in patients with early disease we can expect not that much structural damage at baseline.” Starting treatment early, at the inflammatory stage rather than at the stage where there was a lot of damage already there, could yield better results, he proposed.

“As a clinician, as a researcher, I would be really interested in demonstrating in a prospective, clinical trial that treating patients to target, achieving a remission, would be associated with retardation of structural damage progression. This has only been shown in observational studies so far, so this is an open question.”

Questions on adjustments made for confounding factors

Questions on the spinal presentation included whether there were any differences in NSAID use, to which Dr. Poddubnyy responded, “Patients on TNF inhibitors normally reduce NSAIDs. We adjusted, therefore, for NSAID use.”

The SIJ presentation garnered more questioning. Dr. Torgutalp qualified that both radiographic and nonradiographic patients had been included in the analysis, and “we observe the same effect.”

Asked how clinically relevant the findings were, he noted that, “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first data for sacroiliac joint progression.” The data for spinal progression seem to “reconcile the results from previous investigators,” where there had been some conflicting data on whether 2 or 4 years’ TNF-inhibitor therapy had any effect on radiographic progression.

“I don’t think you’ve adjusted for the baseline level of damage of the SIJ?” queried Pedro Machado, MD, of University College London Hospital. “As you know, in the spine, but also at the SIJ level, the baseline level of damage is usually one of the strongest predictors of further damage.”

This is not something that was adjusted for, Dr. Torgutalp conceded. “We will do it for further analysis,” he said.

Since 2010, GESPIC has been supported by grants from AbbVie. Dr. Poddubnyy reported financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Torgutalp had no relevant disclosures.

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors reduce both spinal and sacroiliac radiographic progression in early axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), but the effects take time.

According to data from the German Spondyloarthritis Inception Cohort (GESPIC), it could take 2-4 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitor treatment before x-rays will show any sign of a benefit in either the spine or sacroiliac joints (SIJ).

“The association between anti-TNF treatment and the retardation of radiographic spinal progression in spondyloarthritis appears to be time-shifted,” GESPIC study investigator Denis Poddubnyy, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Reporting the spinal findings, Dr. Poddubnyy, who is head of the rheumatology department at Campus Benjamin Franklin of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin noted that “at least 4 years of observation is required” to see an effect of TNF inhibitors on new bone formation. “This might be related to the intermediate and long-lasting process of bone repair that follows the resolution of inflammation and precedes the development of new bone,” he suggested.

The effect on the SIJ may precede the spinal damage, so it’s important to look at how anti-inflammatory treatment might affect the SIJ, Dr. Poddubnyy said in an interview. Results from the SIJ analysis, which were presented by Murat Torgutalp, MD, suggested that there might be a 2-year time lag between TNFi treatment and being able to see something on x-rays.

“Everybody in the past focused on the spine, considering that spinal changes are functionally more relevant than changes in the SIJ,” Dr. Poddubnyy observed.

Structural damage in the spine and SIJ in radiographic axSpA probably occur by different processes, he explained. While it’s more to do with new bone formation in the spine, it’s more to do with erosive damage followed by repair in the SIJ. “It is very likely that in the majority of patients we see that those two processes are somehow disconnected in time,” he suggested.

The GESPIC cohort provides a good base from which to examine the effects of TNF inhibitors on radiographic progression in patients with axSpA for several reasons, observed Dr. Poddubnyy. For one it was established in 2000, so “well before the introduction of TNF-alpha inhibitors.” That means that almost all patients would have been put on TNF inhibitors while enrolled in the cohort, he said, “so we could really follow up them prospectively for a few years.” In fact, just nine patients had been treated with TNF inhibitors at baseline.

Spinal findings

Although TNF inhibitors are widely accepted to be effective anti-inflammatory drugs that can relieve patients’ spinal symptoms, there were inconclusive data on whether they can also have an impact on radiographic progression.

To look at the possible immediate or later effect of TNF inhibitors on spinal radiographic progression, the GESPIC investigators looked at sets of radiographs, taken at least 2 years apart over a 10-year period, from 266 patients, 77 of whom who had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for at least 12 months or more. Overall, there were 103 2-year intervals covered by TNF inhibitor treatment of any duration, and 78 intervals in which treatment had lasted for at least 12 months.

“This cohort included patients with quite early disease, including both nonradiographic and radiographic forms,” Dr. Poddubnyy said, adding that some patients had been treated with a TNF inhibitor for up to 10 years.

While there were no significant changes in radiographic progression as measured using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) between patients who had and who had not received at least 12 months’ TNF inhibitor therapy in the first 2 years, there was a substantial difference after 4 years.

The mSASSS change in scores over 2 years in patients who were and were not treated with a TNF inhibitor for 12 months or more were a respective 0.35 and 0.81 (P = .047) considering treatment in the previous 2-year treatment period, and 0.33 and 0.77 (also P = .047) considering treatment in the prior 2-year treatment period and the current 2-year period.

“Our interpretation is that within the first 2 years we see a resolution of inflammation, a process of repair, maybe even a process of bone formation, but then if you continue this inflammation control for longer than 2 years, then we see the effect on structural damage,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

SIJ findings

The SIJ analysis included 301 patients who had at least two sets of radiographs taken every 2 years over a 10-year follow-up period, 87 (28.9%) of whom had been treated with at least one TNF inhibitor during follow-up.

Radiographic SIJ progression was defined as the change in the sacroiliitis sum score over 2 years. Calculations considered both the current 2-year period and the previous 2-year period, as well as any use of TNF inhibitors or more than 12 months’ use.

There were no significant differences in sacroiliitis sum scores comparing people who were and were not treated with TNF inhibitors for at least 12 months in the current 2-year period. However, when the previous 2-year period was looked at there was a significant difference in the score between those who had and had not been treated for 12 or more months (0.15 vs. 0.27, respectively; P = .024).

“These data indicate that TNF inhibitors have a late effect,” Dr. Torgutalp said. “You cannot observe the effect of the TNF inhibitor on radiographic progression in the same interval, you have to wait to see this effect in the next interval,” he explained. That means that when a patient uses a TNF inhibitor, you must wait to see the effect on SIJ progression in the subsequent 2 years, he qualified.

Lessons for practice

“If we control inflammation, we might control structural damage progression,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.

If this is the case, then it is likely that other drugs that control inflammation in axSpA will have a similar effect, such as those that target interleukin-17 or Janus kinases. This is something in the future to look at in the GESPIC cohort once enough patient-years of data are available.

Early treatment is probably important, Dr. Poddubnyy suggested, “because in patients with early disease we can expect not that much structural damage at baseline.” Starting treatment early, at the inflammatory stage rather than at the stage where there was a lot of damage already there, could yield better results, he proposed.

“As a clinician, as a researcher, I would be really interested in demonstrating in a prospective, clinical trial that treating patients to target, achieving a remission, would be associated with retardation of structural damage progression. This has only been shown in observational studies so far, so this is an open question.”

Questions on adjustments made for confounding factors

Questions on the spinal presentation included whether there were any differences in NSAID use, to which Dr. Poddubnyy responded, “Patients on TNF inhibitors normally reduce NSAIDs. We adjusted, therefore, for NSAID use.”

The SIJ presentation garnered more questioning. Dr. Torgutalp qualified that both radiographic and nonradiographic patients had been included in the analysis, and “we observe the same effect.”

Asked how clinically relevant the findings were, he noted that, “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first data for sacroiliac joint progression.” The data for spinal progression seem to “reconcile the results from previous investigators,” where there had been some conflicting data on whether 2 or 4 years’ TNF-inhibitor therapy had any effect on radiographic progression.

“I don’t think you’ve adjusted for the baseline level of damage of the SIJ?” queried Pedro Machado, MD, of University College London Hospital. “As you know, in the spine, but also at the SIJ level, the baseline level of damage is usually one of the strongest predictors of further damage.”

This is not something that was adjusted for, Dr. Torgutalp conceded. “We will do it for further analysis,” he said.

Since 2010, GESPIC has been supported by grants from AbbVie. Dr. Poddubnyy reported financial relationships with AbbVie and numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Torgutalp had no relevant disclosures.

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

Although a phase 3 trial of lenabasum did not meet its primary endpoint for treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc), the drug led to more improvement in participants who were not receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial than that seen in participants who received the placebo. Lenabasum also had a favorable safety profile, according to findings presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involved 363 adults who had had dcSSc for up to 6 years. One third of the participants received 5 mg of oral lenabasum, one third received 20 mg, and one third received a placebo. Patients already receiving immunosuppressant therapy could continue to receive it during the trial if the dose had been stable for at least 8 weeks before screening and corticosteroid therapy did not exceed 10 mg prednisone per day or the equivalent.

“The decision to allow background immunosuppressant therapies was made to reflect real-world clinical practice,” coprincipal investigator Robert Dr. Spiera, MD, director of the Vasculitis and Scleroderma Program at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, told attendees.

“It is surprising that we do not see any added efficacy of lenabasum in this trial, given the fact that the previous phase 2 trial in 42 patients did show a clear benefit of lenabasum over placebo in the same population,” Jeska K. de Vries-Bouwstra, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center told this news organization. “Even more, the clinical response in the phase 2 study was supported by a greater change in gene expression in skin tissue of pathways involved in inflammation and fibrosis with lenabasum as compared to placebo.”

Background immunosuppressants contribute to unprecedented placebo responses

The researchers compared the ACR CRISS (Combined Response Index in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis) score and several secondary endpoints at 52 weeks between the 123 participants who received the placebo and the 120 participants who received 20 mg of lenabasum. A total of 60% of the lenabasum group and 66% of the placebo group had a disease duration of 3 or fewer years, and the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) was 22 in the lenabasum group and 23.3 in the placebo group at baseline.

A large majority of participants in both groups – 89% in the lenabasum group and 84% in the placebo group – were receiving background immunosuppressant therapy during the trial. Specifically, 53% of each group was taking mycophenolate, and 23% of the lenabasum group and 32% of the placebo group were taking corticosteroids. In addition, 22% of the lenabasum group and 12% of the placebo group were on methotrexate, and 27% of the lenabasum group and 22% of the placebo group were on another immunosuppressant therapy.

Half of the placebo group and 58% of the lenabasum group were taking only one immunosuppressive therapy. About one-third of the lenabasum (32%) and placebo (34%) groups were taking two or more immunosuppressive therapies.

The primary endpoint at 52 weeks was not significantly different between the two groups: a CRISS score of 0.888 in the lenabasum group and 0.887 in the placebo group. A CRISS score of 0.6 or higher indicates likelihood that a patient improved on treatment. Patients with significant worsening of renal or cardiopulmonary involvement are classified as not improved (score of 0), regardless of improvements in other core items.

“We had very high CRISS scores in all three groups, and they were comparable in all three groups,” Dr. Spiera reported. Because improvement in placebo group far exceeded expectations, the researchers were unable to discern the treatment effect of lenabasum on top of the placebo effect.

The placebo group had better outcomes than expected because of the background immunosuppressant therapy, particularly the use of mycophenolate. When the researchers looked only at placebo participants, the CRISS score was 0.936 in the 97 patients receiving background immunosuppressant therapy of any kind and 0.935 in the 29 patients taking only mycophenolate with no other immunosuppressant therapy, compared with 0.417 in the 16 patients not receiving any background therapy.

In a prespecified analysis, the researchers investigated background immunosuppressive therapy as a mediator. The CRISS score for the 10 lenabasum participants not receiving background therapy was 0.811, compared with 0.417 seen in the placebo group patients not on background therapy.

Among the 173 participants taking mycophenolate in particular, the mycophenolate “had a statistically significant improvement on CRISS score that increased with each visit,” Dr. Spiera reported. The duration of mycophenolate therapy also affected efficacy results.

Patients who had been taking mycophenolate longer saw less improvement in their CRISS score over time. Those taking it more than 2 years at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.86, compared with 0.96 for those taking it for 1-2 years at baseline and 0.98 for those taking it from 6 months to 1 year at baseline. Those who had only been taking mycophenolate for up to 6 months at baseline had a CRISS score of 0.99. Meanwhile, patients not taking any background immunosuppressant therapies only had a CRISS score of about 0.35.
 

Changes in secondary endpoints followed same pattern as CRISS

The secondary endpoints similarly showed no statistically significant difference when comparing the lenabasum and placebo groups overall. These endpoints included change in mRSS score, change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage and volume, and change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score.

However, the researchers again found that duration of background therapy affected FVC.

“You were more likely to have declined [in FVC] if you were on placebo and more likely to have improved or stayed stable if you were on lenabasum if you were a patient on more than 2 years of immunomodulatory therapy at baseline,” Dr. Spiera reported. “There was evidence for an effect of lenabasum on FVC suggested by post-hoc analyses that considered the effect of background immunosuppressive therapies on outcomes, but those results would require confirmation in additional studies to determine the potential of lenabasum for treating patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis,” Dr. Spiera noted in his conclusions.

Serious adverse events occurred in 9.2% of the lenabasum group and 5.8% of the placebo group. Rates of severe adverse events were similar between the lenabasum (14.6%) and placebo (13%) groups.

Is there a subgroup for whom lenabasum would be efficacious?

Although De Vries-Bouwstra of Leiden University Medical Center acknowledged the role of mycophenolate in the trial, she does not think background therapy can totally explain the observation and speculated on other possibilities.

“For example, there were fewer males in the placebo group as compared to the phase 2 study. From previous cohort studies we know that males have higher risk of worsening of skin disease,” she said. “In addition, it could be worthwhile to evaluate antibody profiles of the population under study; some subpopulations defined by autoantibody have higher risk for skin progression, while others can show spontaneous improvement.”

Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra said that, although it’s not currently appropriate to advocate for lenabasum to treat dcSSc, it may eventually become an additional treatment in those who still show active skin or lung disease after 2 years of mycophenolate treatment if future research identifies a benefit from that application. She would also like to see an evaluation of lenabasum’s possible benefits in patients with very early and active inflammatory disease. “Ideally, one could stratify patients based on biomarkers reflecting activation in relevant pathways, for example by using gene expression analysis from skin tissue to stratify,” she said.

Jacob M. van Laar, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), also commented on the potential differences in using the drug in early versus later disease.

“Based on ex vivo analyses of skin samples from systemic sclerosis patients, one would expect such a mechanism of action to be particularly relevant in very early disease, so the observation that it might also be effective at a later disease stage is interesting,” Dr. van Laar told this news organization. “We still have a lot to learn about this complex disease.”

Given that safety does not appear to be a major concern and that there may be a benefit in a subgroup of patients, Dr. van Laar also said he hoped “the company is not deterred by the seemingly negative result of the primary endpoint.”

Dr. Spiera expressed optimism about what this trial’s findings have revealed about management of dcSSc.

“Independent of what lenabasum did or didn’t do in this trial, I think there’s going to be a lot that we’re going to learn from this trial and that we’re already learning and analyzing right now about treating scleroderma,” he said in an interview.

He reiterated the value of allowing background therapy in the trial to ensure it better replicated real-world clinical practice.

“You’re not withholding therapies that we think are probably active from patients with active disease that, once you incur organ damage, is probably not going to be reversible,” Dr. Spiera said. “The downside is that it makes it harder to see an effect of a drug on top of the background therapy if that background therapy is effective. So what we saw in terms of this absence of benefit from lenabasum really may have been a ceiling effect.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Spiera said the findings still strongly suggest that lenabasum is an active compound.

“It’s not an enormously powerful effect, but it probably has a role as an adjunctive therapy in people on stable background therapy who have either plateaued or are getting worse,” he said. “The thing we have to keep in mind also is this was an incredibly safe therapy. It’s not immunosuppressive.”

The trial was funded by Corbus. Dr. Spiera has received grant support or consulting fees from Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chemocentryx, Corbus, Formation Biologics, Inflarx, Kadmon, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, CSL Behring, Sanofi, and Janssen. Dr. De Vries-Bouwstra has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Boehringer Ingelheim and research grants from Galapagos and Janssen. Dr. Van Laar has received grant funding or personal fees from Arthrogen, Arxx Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gesynta, Leadiant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Thermofisher.

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

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, exposure to air pollution is associated with both elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and increased risk of arthritis flares, according to a novel longitudinal study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The data revealed “a striking association between air pollution and increased CRP levels and risk of an arthritis flare,” reported first author Giovanni Adami, MD, DSc, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy).

The excess risk of elevated CRP and flares began “at very low levels of exposure, even those below commonly used thresholds for risk to human health,” he added.
 

Study details

Researchers collected data on 888 patients with RA from numerous patient visits in the context of more than 13,000 air pollution records. The CRP levels and RA flares were evaluated in the context of air pollution monitoring that is performed on a daily basis at several sites in the city of Verona where the study was conducted. Verona is an industrial city in northern Italy that has high but variable levels of air pollution based on factory activity and weather conditions.

Patients with RA who provided clinical data for this study were matched by their proximity to specific air pollution monitoring sites. By linking CRP levels and disease activity to air pollution levels over multiple follow-up visits, the design allowed the RA study participants “to serve as their own controls,” Dr. Adami explained.

At each patient visit during the study, CRP levels were measured and disease activity assessed. Patients were considered to have elevated CRP when levels were 5 mg/L or higher. The presence of an RA flare was defined by a 1.2-point increase or more in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP).

Both the CRP level and the presence or absence of a flare were evaluated in relationship to the patient’s specific local air pollution levels in the prior 60 days.

Increased levels of CRP, a surrogate for inflammatory activity, and increased disease activity, were both associated with elevated exposure to air pollutants prior to an office visit. These associations remained statistically significant when evaluated by specific air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO₂, NO), small particulate matter (PM10; particles ≤ 10 mcm), and ozone (O₃).

The relationship between increased exposure to air pollution contaminants and elevated CRP was supported by a dose effect. In the case of PM10, for example, the odds ratio of having elevated CRP was increased by only about 25% (OR, 1.25) when mean levels were 30 mcg/m³ or lower in the period prior to the office visit. This rose incrementally for higher mean levels of PM10, reaching 70% (OR, 1.70) for levels > 50 mcg/m³.

The researchers detected statistically significant differences in mean and area-under-the curve (AUC) values of most air pollutants in the 60 days prior to office visits when patients had a flare versus when disease activity was low. For example, the difference in mean and AUC levels in the period prior to a flare relative to a period with low disease activity was significant for CO (P = .001 for both) and NO and NO₂ (P = .003 for both), and O₃ (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). For PM10, P values were .011 and .005, respectively.

“Remarkably, we found that the cumulative exposure to NO₂ in the 60 days preceding a flare was approximately 500 mcg/m³ higher than the low disease activity visit, an exposure that equates to approximately 200 passively smoked cigarettes,” Dr. Adami reported.
 

Trying to confirm causality of association

Dr. Adami’s study is not the first study to link air pollution to risk of RA. Several have suggested that air pollution is a risk factor for developing joint disease, but a recently published study conducted in Kuwait associated greater disease activity with NO₂ and another air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), although not CO, PM10, or O₃.

A coauthor of that study, which evaluated pollution in regard to disease activity on DAS score, Adeeba Al-Herz, MD, a rheumatology consultant at Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, said in an interview, “We proved the correlation between them but not the causality.”

However, she believes that this is an important area of inquiry.

“We are working now on another paper in which we studied a causal relationship between the two, meaning that we are evaluating whether SO₂ and NO₂ trigger RA activity,” Dr. Al-Herz said. That study is now complete, and the manuscript is being written.

The magnitude of the association in these two studies suggest that there might be a clinical message if causality can be confirmed, according to Dr. Adami. Although there are many reasons to seek to reduce and avoid air pollution, these data suggest risk of a proinflammatory state might be one of them.

Dr. Adami believes that the evidence of an adverse effect on patients with RA is strong.

“In order to reduce the burden of RA, public and environmental health policy makers should aim to diminish gaseous and particulate matter emissions to a larger extent than currently recommended,” he said.

In an interview after his presentation, Dr. Adami suggested that the risk of an inflammatory response and increases in arthritis flares from air pollution is not surprising. Previous studies have linked cigarette smoking to both.

“The mechanisms underlying the development of inflammation are very similar. Indeed, the toxic components contained in cigarette smoking are largely shared with diesel exhaust and fossil fuel combustion,” he said.

Although causality between air pollution and arthritis flares cannot be confirmed in these data, a basis for suspecting a causal relationship is supported by “plenty of in vitro and animal studies,” according to Dr. Adami.

On the basis of these studies, several mechanisms have been postulated.

“As an example, exposure to air pollution can promote the activation of the bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), which can trigger the activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB,” he said. This, in turn, can “lead to the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-1.”

Another theory is that posttranslational modification of proteins in the lung, a process called citrullination, “can lead to production of autoantibodies known to have a pathogenic role in RA,” he added.

Proving a causal relationship, however, is difficult.

“We certainly cannot conduct a randomized clinical trial on that and voluntarily expose some patients to pollution. Thus, we need to rely on observational data,” Dr. Adami said.

Of strategies being considered to generate evidence of a causal relationship between pollution and the exacerbation of RA, “we certainly will try to study those patients that move from a highly polluted area to a greener zone and vice versa,” he said. This will allow us “to explore what happens when the exposure to pollution changes dramatically in a short period of time.”

In the meantime, “given what is known to date, I would certainly advise my RA patients to avoid exposure to air pollution,” Dr. Adami said. He acknowledged there is no proof that this will help patients to reduce the risk of flares, but there are already many good reasons to minimize exposure to air pollution.

Dr. Adami and Dr. Al-Herz report no potential conflicts of interest.

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, exposure to air pollution is associated with both elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and increased risk of arthritis flares, according to a novel longitudinal study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The data revealed “a striking association between air pollution and increased CRP levels and risk of an arthritis flare,” reported first author Giovanni Adami, MD, DSc, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy).

The excess risk of elevated CRP and flares began “at very low levels of exposure, even those below commonly used thresholds for risk to human health,” he added.
 

Study details

Researchers collected data on 888 patients with RA from numerous patient visits in the context of more than 13,000 air pollution records. The CRP levels and RA flares were evaluated in the context of air pollution monitoring that is performed on a daily basis at several sites in the city of Verona where the study was conducted. Verona is an industrial city in northern Italy that has high but variable levels of air pollution based on factory activity and weather conditions.

Patients with RA who provided clinical data for this study were matched by their proximity to specific air pollution monitoring sites. By linking CRP levels and disease activity to air pollution levels over multiple follow-up visits, the design allowed the RA study participants “to serve as their own controls,” Dr. Adami explained.

At each patient visit during the study, CRP levels were measured and disease activity assessed. Patients were considered to have elevated CRP when levels were 5 mg/L or higher. The presence of an RA flare was defined by a 1.2-point increase or more in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP).

Both the CRP level and the presence or absence of a flare were evaluated in relationship to the patient’s specific local air pollution levels in the prior 60 days.

Increased levels of CRP, a surrogate for inflammatory activity, and increased disease activity, were both associated with elevated exposure to air pollutants prior to an office visit. These associations remained statistically significant when evaluated by specific air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO₂, NO), small particulate matter (PM10; particles ≤ 10 mcm), and ozone (O₃).

The relationship between increased exposure to air pollution contaminants and elevated CRP was supported by a dose effect. In the case of PM10, for example, the odds ratio of having elevated CRP was increased by only about 25% (OR, 1.25) when mean levels were 30 mcg/m³ or lower in the period prior to the office visit. This rose incrementally for higher mean levels of PM10, reaching 70% (OR, 1.70) for levels > 50 mcg/m³.

The researchers detected statistically significant differences in mean and area-under-the curve (AUC) values of most air pollutants in the 60 days prior to office visits when patients had a flare versus when disease activity was low. For example, the difference in mean and AUC levels in the period prior to a flare relative to a period with low disease activity was significant for CO (P = .001 for both) and NO and NO₂ (P = .003 for both), and O₃ (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). For PM10, P values were .011 and .005, respectively.

“Remarkably, we found that the cumulative exposure to NO₂ in the 60 days preceding a flare was approximately 500 mcg/m³ higher than the low disease activity visit, an exposure that equates to approximately 200 passively smoked cigarettes,” Dr. Adami reported.
 

Trying to confirm causality of association

Dr. Adami’s study is not the first study to link air pollution to risk of RA. Several have suggested that air pollution is a risk factor for developing joint disease, but a recently published study conducted in Kuwait associated greater disease activity with NO₂ and another air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), although not CO, PM10, or O₃.

A coauthor of that study, which evaluated pollution in regard to disease activity on DAS score, Adeeba Al-Herz, MD, a rheumatology consultant at Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, said in an interview, “We proved the correlation between them but not the causality.”

However, she believes that this is an important area of inquiry.

“We are working now on another paper in which we studied a causal relationship between the two, meaning that we are evaluating whether SO₂ and NO₂ trigger RA activity,” Dr. Al-Herz said. That study is now complete, and the manuscript is being written.

The magnitude of the association in these two studies suggest that there might be a clinical message if causality can be confirmed, according to Dr. Adami. Although there are many reasons to seek to reduce and avoid air pollution, these data suggest risk of a proinflammatory state might be one of them.

Dr. Adami believes that the evidence of an adverse effect on patients with RA is strong.

“In order to reduce the burden of RA, public and environmental health policy makers should aim to diminish gaseous and particulate matter emissions to a larger extent than currently recommended,” he said.

In an interview after his presentation, Dr. Adami suggested that the risk of an inflammatory response and increases in arthritis flares from air pollution is not surprising. Previous studies have linked cigarette smoking to both.

“The mechanisms underlying the development of inflammation are very similar. Indeed, the toxic components contained in cigarette smoking are largely shared with diesel exhaust and fossil fuel combustion,” he said.

Although causality between air pollution and arthritis flares cannot be confirmed in these data, a basis for suspecting a causal relationship is supported by “plenty of in vitro and animal studies,” according to Dr. Adami.

On the basis of these studies, several mechanisms have been postulated.

“As an example, exposure to air pollution can promote the activation of the bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), which can trigger the activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB,” he said. This, in turn, can “lead to the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-1.”

Another theory is that posttranslational modification of proteins in the lung, a process called citrullination, “can lead to production of autoantibodies known to have a pathogenic role in RA,” he added.

Proving a causal relationship, however, is difficult.

“We certainly cannot conduct a randomized clinical trial on that and voluntarily expose some patients to pollution. Thus, we need to rely on observational data,” Dr. Adami said.

Of strategies being considered to generate evidence of a causal relationship between pollution and the exacerbation of RA, “we certainly will try to study those patients that move from a highly polluted area to a greener zone and vice versa,” he said. This will allow us “to explore what happens when the exposure to pollution changes dramatically in a short period of time.”

In the meantime, “given what is known to date, I would certainly advise my RA patients to avoid exposure to air pollution,” Dr. Adami said. He acknowledged there is no proof that this will help patients to reduce the risk of flares, but there are already many good reasons to minimize exposure to air pollution.

Dr. Adami and Dr. Al-Herz report no potential conflicts of interest.

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, exposure to air pollution is associated with both elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and increased risk of arthritis flares, according to a novel longitudinal study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The data revealed “a striking association between air pollution and increased CRP levels and risk of an arthritis flare,” reported first author Giovanni Adami, MD, DSc, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy).

The excess risk of elevated CRP and flares began “at very low levels of exposure, even those below commonly used thresholds for risk to human health,” he added.
 

Study details

Researchers collected data on 888 patients with RA from numerous patient visits in the context of more than 13,000 air pollution records. The CRP levels and RA flares were evaluated in the context of air pollution monitoring that is performed on a daily basis at several sites in the city of Verona where the study was conducted. Verona is an industrial city in northern Italy that has high but variable levels of air pollution based on factory activity and weather conditions.

Patients with RA who provided clinical data for this study were matched by their proximity to specific air pollution monitoring sites. By linking CRP levels and disease activity to air pollution levels over multiple follow-up visits, the design allowed the RA study participants “to serve as their own controls,” Dr. Adami explained.

At each patient visit during the study, CRP levels were measured and disease activity assessed. Patients were considered to have elevated CRP when levels were 5 mg/L or higher. The presence of an RA flare was defined by a 1.2-point increase or more in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using CRP (DAS28-CRP).

Both the CRP level and the presence or absence of a flare were evaluated in relationship to the patient’s specific local air pollution levels in the prior 60 days.

Increased levels of CRP, a surrogate for inflammatory activity, and increased disease activity, were both associated with elevated exposure to air pollutants prior to an office visit. These associations remained statistically significant when evaluated by specific air pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO₂, NO), small particulate matter (PM10; particles ≤ 10 mcm), and ozone (O₃).

The relationship between increased exposure to air pollution contaminants and elevated CRP was supported by a dose effect. In the case of PM10, for example, the odds ratio of having elevated CRP was increased by only about 25% (OR, 1.25) when mean levels were 30 mcg/m³ or lower in the period prior to the office visit. This rose incrementally for higher mean levels of PM10, reaching 70% (OR, 1.70) for levels > 50 mcg/m³.

The researchers detected statistically significant differences in mean and area-under-the curve (AUC) values of most air pollutants in the 60 days prior to office visits when patients had a flare versus when disease activity was low. For example, the difference in mean and AUC levels in the period prior to a flare relative to a period with low disease activity was significant for CO (P = .001 for both) and NO and NO₂ (P = .003 for both), and O₃ (P = .002 and P = .001, respectively). For PM10, P values were .011 and .005, respectively.

“Remarkably, we found that the cumulative exposure to NO₂ in the 60 days preceding a flare was approximately 500 mcg/m³ higher than the low disease activity visit, an exposure that equates to approximately 200 passively smoked cigarettes,” Dr. Adami reported.
 

Trying to confirm causality of association

Dr. Adami’s study is not the first study to link air pollution to risk of RA. Several have suggested that air pollution is a risk factor for developing joint disease, but a recently published study conducted in Kuwait associated greater disease activity with NO₂ and another air pollutant, sulfur dioxide (SO₂), although not CO, PM10, or O₃.

A coauthor of that study, which evaluated pollution in regard to disease activity on DAS score, Adeeba Al-Herz, MD, a rheumatology consultant at Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, said in an interview, “We proved the correlation between them but not the causality.”

However, she believes that this is an important area of inquiry.

“We are working now on another paper in which we studied a causal relationship between the two, meaning that we are evaluating whether SO₂ and NO₂ trigger RA activity,” Dr. Al-Herz said. That study is now complete, and the manuscript is being written.

The magnitude of the association in these two studies suggest that there might be a clinical message if causality can be confirmed, according to Dr. Adami. Although there are many reasons to seek to reduce and avoid air pollution, these data suggest risk of a proinflammatory state might be one of them.

Dr. Adami believes that the evidence of an adverse effect on patients with RA is strong.

“In order to reduce the burden of RA, public and environmental health policy makers should aim to diminish gaseous and particulate matter emissions to a larger extent than currently recommended,” he said.

In an interview after his presentation, Dr. Adami suggested that the risk of an inflammatory response and increases in arthritis flares from air pollution is not surprising. Previous studies have linked cigarette smoking to both.

“The mechanisms underlying the development of inflammation are very similar. Indeed, the toxic components contained in cigarette smoking are largely shared with diesel exhaust and fossil fuel combustion,” he said.

Although causality between air pollution and arthritis flares cannot be confirmed in these data, a basis for suspecting a causal relationship is supported by “plenty of in vitro and animal studies,” according to Dr. Adami.

On the basis of these studies, several mechanisms have been postulated.

“As an example, exposure to air pollution can promote the activation of the bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), which can trigger the activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappaB,” he said. This, in turn, can “lead to the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor–alpha and interleukin-1.”

Another theory is that posttranslational modification of proteins in the lung, a process called citrullination, “can lead to production of autoantibodies known to have a pathogenic role in RA,” he added.

Proving a causal relationship, however, is difficult.

“We certainly cannot conduct a randomized clinical trial on that and voluntarily expose some patients to pollution. Thus, we need to rely on observational data,” Dr. Adami said.

Of strategies being considered to generate evidence of a causal relationship between pollution and the exacerbation of RA, “we certainly will try to study those patients that move from a highly polluted area to a greener zone and vice versa,” he said. This will allow us “to explore what happens when the exposure to pollution changes dramatically in a short period of time.”

In the meantime, “given what is known to date, I would certainly advise my RA patients to avoid exposure to air pollution,” Dr. Adami said. He acknowledged there is no proof that this will help patients to reduce the risk of flares, but there are already many good reasons to minimize exposure to air pollution.

Dr. Adami and Dr. Al-Herz report no potential conflicts of interest.

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

A West Virginia physician faces up to 20 years in prison in the wake of his conviction by a federal jury for illegally distributing buprenorphine.

The jury convicted Sriramloo Kesari, MD, 78, of Charleston, for distributing buprenorphine outside the scope of medical practice, according to a U.S. Department of Justice statement. 

Investigators from the Drug Enforcement Administration presented evidence at the trial that Dr. Kesari, a general practitioner, operated a cash-only business selling buprenorphine prescriptions.

Federal prosecutors said that the physician signed prescriptions, which were then distributed by an employee in exchange for cash. Dr. Kesari was often absent, at times physically located in California, according to the federal government.

Prosecutors indicted the West Virginia physician in September 2019 as part of an “opioid strikeforce takedown” in Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia that resulted in charges against 13 individuals, including 11 physicians.

Dr. Kesari’s attorneys filed motions during the course of the lengthy case showing that psychiatric and neurological exams indicated that the physician was cognitively impaired. 

Based on that evidence and the federal indictment, the West Virginia Board of Medicine suspended Dr. Kesari’s license in February 2020, stating that he is not “mentally and/or physically fit to practice medicine and surgery with reasonable skill and safety.”

Dr. Kesari was first licensed in West Virginia in 1979. In 1987, the Board of Medicine placed Dr. Kesari on a 3-year probation because of his failure to keep records for patients for whom he was prescribing controlled substances. 

However, within a few months, the Board changed the probation order to allow Dr. Kesari to write prescriptions for schedule II and III substances in the Boone Hospital emergency room where he continued to work.

The physician had no other disciplinary actions until his license suspension, but the Board lists settlement of four malpractice cases and the dismissal of a fifth between 1986 and 2001.

Dr. Kesari is scheduled to be sentenced on August 25.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”

Dr. van Vollenhoven asked: “Could the practice of stopping these drugs upon COVID infection have a negative impact on the course?” To which Dr. Sparks responded: “The different half-life of drugs would be a promising avenue to look at, to see whether increases in disease activity might have imparted some of the effects we saw.”
 

Performing the analysis

As of April 12, 2021, the GRA Physician Registry contained the records of more than 15,000 patients. Dr. Sparks, collaborator Zachary Wallace, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and associates limited their analysis to 2,869 patients with RA who had been treated with either a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) at the time they were diagnosed with COVID-19.

“We wanted to limit it to a single disease and also limit it to drugs that are considered for that disease,” Dr. Sparks explained in an interview.

“Because patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often treated sequentially, we wanted to further limit the analysis to patients who were on advanced therapies so that they were at a similar disease state, and also had the opportunity to receive advanced therapies.”

This approach hopefully minimizes the possibility of confounding by indication, Dr. Sparks said.

Most of the patients included in the analysis had received a TNFi (n = 1,388), and they were used as the control arm of the analysis. Outcomes associated with treatment with the other b/tsDMARDs, which included abatacept (n = 237), rituximab (n = 364), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i; n = 317), and JAKi (n = 563), were then compared with TNFi.

Baseline characteristics of patients were broadly similar across the groups. The mean age was 56.7 years and 80.8% of the study population was female. There were a few expected differences among users of rituximab versus TNFi, notably a higher percentage of patients with interstitial lung disease (11% vs. 1.4% of TNFi users) or cancer (7.4% vs. 0.9%) among patients treated with rituximab since it is commonly used in these patients, Dr. Sparks said.

“We did perform a sensitivity analysis where we restricted the population to not having ILD or cancer and we actually found really similar findings,” he added.

Four COVID-19 outcomes assessed

The researchers used a four-point ordinal scale modeled after one set by the World Health Organization to assess four COVID-19 outcomes: not hospitalized, hospitalized without oxygenation, hospitalized with oxygenation or ventilation, and death.

Odds ratios (ORs) comparing rituximab to TNFi for these four COVID-19 outcomes were a respective 4.53, 2.87, 4.05, and 4.57. The ORs for JAKi versus TNFi were a respective 2.4, 1.55, 2.03, and 2.04.

“We found no consistent associations of abatacept or interleukin-6 inhibitors with COVID-19 severity, compared to TNF inhibitors,” which is reassuring, Dr. Sparks said.

ORs for the four COVID-19 outcomes with abatacept were a respective 1.18, 1.12, 1.41, and 1.46, and for IL-6i were 0.84, 0.72, 0.75, and 1.13.

Rituximab use in patients with RA who develop COVID-19

So, should rituximab be stopped in patients with RA if they develop COVID-19? “This is an important question and one that would be decided on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Sparks said. “Of course, the drug has a very long half-life, so risk mitigation strategies are still of utmost importance,” he added.

“I think everyone’s a bit reticent to want to start rituximab in this environment, but it might also make me pause about starting a JAK inhibitor,” Dr. Sparks added. “Given that this is a first finding, I’m not sure I would necessarily change patients who are doing well on these medications. I think what it really makes me want to do is to try to obviously vaccinate the patients on JAK inhibitors as they do have a short half-life.”

More observational studies would be helpful, Dr. Sparks said, adding that “the most pressing need is to try to figure out how to protect our patients with rituximab.”

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Physician Registry is supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Dr. Sparks disclosed serving as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Optum, and Pfizer for work unrelated to this study. Dr. Wallace disclosed receiving grant support from Bristol Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and serving as a consultant for Viela Bio and Medpace for work unrelated to this study.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were using rituximab at the time of COVID-19 onset had a fourfold higher risk of being hospitalized, needing mechanical ventilation, or dying, compared with patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), according to a report given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The use of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) also was associated with a twofold higher risk for these COVID-19 outcomes, said Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, in presenting the analysis from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) Physician Registry.

“The strong association of rituximab and JAK inhibitor use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights the prioritization of risk mitigation strategies for these patients,” Dr. Sparks said at the meeting.

The full findings have now been published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
 

JAKi association questioned

These findings provide “an important understanding for the risk of our patients in times before vaccination,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, who chaired the session in which the study was presented.

However, “recently, baricitinib was licensed to prevent particular aspects of severe COVID. What’s the explanation for this discrepancy?” he asked.

“Certainly, the JAK inhibitor finding deserves further study,” Dr. Sparks acknowledged, adding that the data were analyzed by class rather than for individual drugs.

“One possible explanation could be when JAK inhibitors are used,” he suggested. “It might be different for patients who [have been] just infected – that might have different biologic effects – as opposed to choosing to treat patients right when there’s a hyperinflammatory cascade, or there’s oxygen need.”

Regarding the JAK inhibitor finding, Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam, pointed out during the online Q&A that “JAKi have a very short half-life compared to biologics.”