User login
Methotrexate’s impact on COVID-19 vaccination: New insights made
Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.
In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.
In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
Pausing methotrexate after booster
The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.
It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.
“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.
In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.
However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.
“Although this finding adds to the evidence base to support interruption of methotrexate after vaccination, a shared decision process is needed to weigh the possible benefit of optimizing protection from COVID-19 and the possible risk of underlying disease flare,” they added.
Dr. Abhishek and colleagues assessed 254 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease from dermatology and rheumatology clinics across 26 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants had been diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriasis without or with arthritis. They had also been taking up to 25 mg of methotrexate per week for 3 months or longer and had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine. The booster dose was most often the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine (82%). The patients’ mean age was 59 years, with females comprising 61% of the cohort. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either group.
Investigators performing laboratory analysis were masked to cohort assignment, and clinical research staff, data analysts, participants, and researchers were unmasked.
The elevated antibody response of patients who suspended methotrexate was the same across different kinds of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, primary vaccination platform, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and age.
Notably, no intervention-associated adverse events were reported, the study team noted.
The conclusions that could be drawn from the booster-dose study were limited by the trial’s modest cohort size, the small number of patients in exploratory subgroup analyses, a lack of information about differences in prescription drug behavior, and early termination’s effect on the researchers’ ability to identify differences between subgroups and in secondary outcomes, the authors noted.
Other limitations included a lack of generalizability to patients with active disease who couldn’t stop therapy and were not included in the investigation, and participants were not blinded to what group they were in, the researchers said.
Expert commentary
This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.
“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”
Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.
It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses
Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.
Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.
In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.
The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).
The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).
The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.
Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II
Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.
“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.
“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.
Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.
In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.
In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
Pausing methotrexate after booster
The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.
It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.
“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.
In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.
However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.
“Although this finding adds to the evidence base to support interruption of methotrexate after vaccination, a shared decision process is needed to weigh the possible benefit of optimizing protection from COVID-19 and the possible risk of underlying disease flare,” they added.
Dr. Abhishek and colleagues assessed 254 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease from dermatology and rheumatology clinics across 26 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants had been diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriasis without or with arthritis. They had also been taking up to 25 mg of methotrexate per week for 3 months or longer and had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine. The booster dose was most often the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine (82%). The patients’ mean age was 59 years, with females comprising 61% of the cohort. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either group.
Investigators performing laboratory analysis were masked to cohort assignment, and clinical research staff, data analysts, participants, and researchers were unmasked.
The elevated antibody response of patients who suspended methotrexate was the same across different kinds of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, primary vaccination platform, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and age.
Notably, no intervention-associated adverse events were reported, the study team noted.
The conclusions that could be drawn from the booster-dose study were limited by the trial’s modest cohort size, the small number of patients in exploratory subgroup analyses, a lack of information about differences in prescription drug behavior, and early termination’s effect on the researchers’ ability to identify differences between subgroups and in secondary outcomes, the authors noted.
Other limitations included a lack of generalizability to patients with active disease who couldn’t stop therapy and were not included in the investigation, and participants were not blinded to what group they were in, the researchers said.
Expert commentary
This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.
“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”
Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.
It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses
Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.
Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.
In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.
The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).
The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).
The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.
Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II
Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.
“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.
“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.
Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients who take methotrexate for a variety of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and pause taking the drug following receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine dose did not have a higher risk of disease flare and had higher antireceptor binding domain (anti-RBD) antibody titers and increased immunogenicity when compared with continuing the drug, three recent studies suggest.
In one study, British researchers examined the effects of a 2-week break in methotrexate therapy on anti-RBD titers following receipt of a third COVID-19 vaccine dose. In their paper published in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine, they reported results from a randomized, open-label, superiority trial that suggested pausing the drug improved immunogenicity, compared with no break.
In two trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 Congress, a team from India set out to determine whether holding methotrexate after receiving both doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, or holding it only after the second dose, was safe and effective. They found that pausing methotrexate only following the second dose contributed to a lower flare risk, and that patients had higher anti-RBD titers when holding methotrexate for 2 weeks following each dose.
Pausing methotrexate after booster
The 2-week methotrexate break and booster vaccine dose data in the Vaccine Response On Off Methotrexate (VROOM) trial showed that after a month, the geometric mean antispike 1 (S1)-RBD antibody titer was 10,798 U/mL (95% confidence interval [CI], 8,970-12,997) in the group that continued methotrexate and 22,750 U/mL (95% CI, 19,314-26,796) in the group that suspended methotrexate; the geometric mean ratio was 2.19 (P < .0001; mixed-effects model), reported Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham in Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
Prior research showed that stopping methotrexate therapy for 2 weeks following the seasonal influenza vaccine contributed to better vaccine immunity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, but there was no impact of stopping the drug for up to 4 weeks before vaccination on vaccine-related immunity, the researchers noted.
It is crucial in maximizing long-lasting vaccine protection in people who are possibly susceptible through immune suppression at this point in the COVID-19 vaccination regimen, the study team noted.
“Evidence from this study will be useful for policymakers, national immunization advisory committees, and specialist societies formulating recommendations on the use of methotrexate around the time of COVID-19 vaccination. This evidence will help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the risks and benefits of interrupting methotrexate treatment around the time of COVID-19 vaccination, with implications for the potential to extend such approaches to other therapeutics,” they wrote.
In American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidance for COVID-19 vaccination, the organization advised against using standard synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic medicines such as methotrexate “for 1-2 weeks (as disease activity allows) after each COVID-19 vaccine dose,” given the at-risk population and public health concerns, Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted in an accompanying editorial in The Lancet: Respiratory Medicine.
However, when the ACR developed this statement, there was only one trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis who paused methotrexate following seasonal influenza vaccination, the editorialists said.
“Although this finding adds to the evidence base to support interruption of methotrexate after vaccination, a shared decision process is needed to weigh the possible benefit of optimizing protection from COVID-19 and the possible risk of underlying disease flare,” they added.
Dr. Abhishek and colleagues assessed 254 patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease from dermatology and rheumatology clinics across 26 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants had been diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis, and psoriasis without or with arthritis. They had also been taking up to 25 mg of methotrexate per week for 3 months or longer and had received two doses of either the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine or AstraZeneca/Oxford viral vector vaccine. The booster dose was most often the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine (82%). The patients’ mean age was 59 years, with females comprising 61% of the cohort. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either group.
Investigators performing laboratory analysis were masked to cohort assignment, and clinical research staff, data analysts, participants, and researchers were unmasked.
The elevated antibody response of patients who suspended methotrexate was the same across different kinds of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, primary vaccination platform, SARS-CoV-2 infection history, and age.
Notably, no intervention-associated adverse events were reported, the study team noted.
The conclusions that could be drawn from the booster-dose study were limited by the trial’s modest cohort size, the small number of patients in exploratory subgroup analyses, a lack of information about differences in prescription drug behavior, and early termination’s effect on the researchers’ ability to identify differences between subgroups and in secondary outcomes, the authors noted.
Other limitations included a lack of generalizability to patients with active disease who couldn’t stop therapy and were not included in the investigation, and participants were not blinded to what group they were in, the researchers said.
Expert commentary
This current study is consistent with other studies over the last several months showing that methotrexate harms both humoral and cell-mediated COVID-19 responses, noted Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious disease and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who was not involved in the study. “And so now the new wave of studies are like this one, where they are holding methotrexate experimentally and seeing if it makes a difference,” he said.
“The one shortcoming of this study – and so far, the studies to date – is that no one has looked at whether the experimental hold has resulted in a change in T-cell responses, which ... we are [now] recognizing [the importance of] more and more in long-term protection, particularly in severe disease. Theoretically, holding [methotrexate] might help enhance T-cell responses, but that hasn’t been shown experimentally.”
Dr. Winthrop pointed out that one might get the same benefit from holding methotrexate for 1 week instead of 2 and that there likely is a reduced risk of flare-up from underlying autoimmune disease.
It is still not certain that this benefit extends to other vaccines, Dr. Winthrop noted. “It is probably true for most vaccines that if you hold methotrexate for 1 or 2 weeks, you might see some short-term benefit in responsiveness, but you don’t know that there is any clinical meaningfulness of this. That’s going to take other long-term studies. You don’t know how long this benefit lasts.”
Pausing methotrexate during initial COVID vaccine doses
Patients with either rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis had higher anti-RBD antibody titers when methotrexate was stopped after both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, or simply after the second dose, than when methotrexate was continued, according to results from two single-center, randomized controlled trials called MIVAC I and II, Anu Sreekanth, MD, of Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission in Kochi, Kerala, India, and colleagues reported at EULAR 2022.
Results from MIVAC I indicated that there was a higher flare rate when methotrexate was stopped after both vaccine doses, but there was no difference in flare rate in MIVAC II when methotrexate was stopped only after the second dose as opposed to stopping it after both doses.
In the MIVAC I trial, 158 unvaccinated patients were randomized 1:1 to a cohort in which methotrexate was held for 2 weeks after both doses and a cohort in which methotrexate was continued despite the vaccine. In MIVAC II, 157 patients continued methotrexate while receiving the first vaccine dose. These patients were subsequently randomized either to continue or to stop methotrexate for 2 weeks following the second dose.
The findings from MIVAC I demonstrated the flare rate was lower in the methotrexate-continue group than in the methotrexate-pause group (8% vs. 25%; P = .005) and that the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher for the methotrexate-pause group than the methotrexate-continue group (2,484 vs. 1,147; P = .001).
The results from MIVAC II trial indicated that there was no difference in flare rates between the two study groups (7.9% vs. 11.8%; P = .15). Yet, the median anti-RBD titer was significantly higher in the methotrexate-pause cohort than in the methotrexate-continue cohort (2,553 vs. 990; P = .001).
The report suggests there is a flare risk when methotrexate is stopped, Dr. Sreekanth noted. “It appears more logical to hold only after the second dose, as comparable anti-RBD titers are generated” with either approach, Dr. Sreekanth said.
Expert commentary: MIVAC I and II
Inés Colmegna, MD, associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, noted that it was intriguing that the risk of flares in MIVAC II is half of that reported after each of the doses of MIVAC I. “It is also worth emphasizing that despite the reported frequency of flares, the actual disease activity [as measured by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints] in patients who did or did not withhold methotrexate was similar.
“MIVAC I and II have practical implications as they help to adequately inform patients about the risk and benefit trade of withholding methotrexate post–COVID-19 vaccination,” Dr. Colmegna told this news organization.
“Additional information would help to [further] interpret the findings of these studies, including whether any of the participants were taking any other DMARDs; data on the severity of the flares and functional impact; analysis of factors that predict the risk of flares, such as higher doses of methotrexate; [and change in] disease activity scores pre- and postvaccination,” Dr. Colmegna concluded.
Dr. Abhishek disclosed relationships with Springer, UpTodate, Oxford, Immunotec, AstraZeneca, Inflazome, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, and Cadila Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Abhishek is cochair of the ACR/EULAR CPPD Classification Criteria Working Group and the OMERACT CPPD Working Group. Dr. Sparks disclosed relationships with Gilead, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie, unrelated to this study. Dr. Tedeschi disclosed relationships with ModernaTx and NGM Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Winthrop disclosed a research grant and serving as a scientific consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Sreekanth and Dr. Colmegna have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis evaluated in multinational study
Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.
The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.
In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.
Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.
Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.
A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.
“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).
Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).
Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.
For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.
AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.
Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.
The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.
In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.
Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.
Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.
A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.
“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).
Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).
Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.
For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.
AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.
Four risk factors predicted the progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over a 5-year period in the PROOF study, a global, real-world, prospective, observational study carried out in 29 countries across six different geographic regions.
The predictors of progression within 5 years, based on the presence of radiographic sacroiliitis, included male gender, fulfillment of imaging criteria, HLA-B27 positivity, and a good response to NSAIDs, Denis Poddubnyy, MD, professor of rheumatology at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said in his presentation of the study results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“In this study, 16% of nonradiographic axSpA patients progressed to radiographic axSpA within 5 years, with the mean time to disease progression of 2.4 years,” he said. PROOF (Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis: Multicountry Registry of Clinical Characteristics) was originally designed to compare demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with axSpA across geographic regions.
In this particular analysis, Dr. Poddubnyy and colleagues aimed to track structural damage progression in the sacroiliac joint over time, as he explained in an interview. The study enrolled 2,633 adults with chronic back pain lasting for at least 3 months with onset before the age of 45 years. This analysis included patients diagnosed with axSpA who also fulfilled the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA.
Both baseline and follow-up radiographs of sacroiliac joints were evaluated for those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA by two central readers; in cases when the readers disagreed on the classification – either nonradiographic or radiographic axSpA – images were adjudicated by a third reader. Radiographic progression from nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA was evaluated over the next 5 years.
Among all enrolled patients, 82% (n = 2,165) were diagnosed with axSpA and fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria. Of 1,612 who were classified by central reading, 65% had radiographic axSpA while the remaining 35% had nonradiographic axSpA. About 78% of those with nonradiographic axSpA fulfilled the ASAS classification criteria because of positive findings on imaging plus one or more features of spondyloarthritis. The other 22% were classified according to clinical criteria.
A total of 246 nonradiographic axSpA patients who had one or more follow-up radiographs of the sacroiliac joint were included in the current analysis. In this smaller group of patients, progression from the initial diagnosis of nonradiographic to radiographic axSpA at any one point over the 5-year follow-up occurred in 40 patients (16%) at a range of between 0.9 and 5.1 years.
“Females are more likely to stay in the nonradiographic stage than males,” Dr. Poddubnyy noted. Indeed, male gender conferred an over-threefold higher risk of radiographic progression, compared with females (hazard ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-8.17; P = .0174). Fulfillment of imaging criteria – in other words, the presence of inflammation on MRI – was also a strong predictor of progression, conferring an over-sixfold risk of radiographic progression (HR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.37-32.25; P = .0188).
Interestingly, a good response to NSAIDs – the mainstay treatment for both nonradiographic and radiographic axSpA – was also significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring an over-fourfold risk among those with an initial diagnosis of nonradiographic axSpA (HR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.23-17.71; P = .0237). And in a separate model, HLA-B27 positivity was significantly associated with radiographic progression, conferring a nearly fourfold higher risk of progression (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.10-14.49; P = .0353).
Asked if rheumatologists need to manage patients with nonradiographic axSpA differently than those with radiographic progression, Dr. Poddubnyy said that there was a small difference between the two in that biologics such as interleukin-17 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors are approved for radiographic axSpA, whereas they are not approved for nonradiographic disease despite some off-label use. “We need to have high levels of symptoms plus nonresponse to NSAIDs and then we can prescribe a biologic,” he added.
For patients with nonradiographic axSpA, patients similarly need to have a high symptom burden and a nonresponse to NSAIDs, but in addition, physicians need to demonstrate objective signs of inflammatory activity, such as an elevated C-reactive protein level or the presence of inflammation on MRI before moving on the next level.
AbbVie funded the PROOF study. Dr. Poddubnyy declared receiving speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, as well as research support from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. A number of coauthors also disclosed financial relationships with these and other pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
No more ‘escape hatch’: Post Roe, new worries about meds linked to birth defects
As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?
“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”
Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”
Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.
Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.
Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.
Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.
“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”
Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.
Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.
What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”
Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”
Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”
The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.
“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”
Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.
While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.
“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”
The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?
“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”
Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”
Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.
Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.
Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.
Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.
“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”
Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.
Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.
What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”
Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”
Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”
The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.
“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”
Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.
While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.
“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”
The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
As states ban or limit abortion in the wake of the demise of Roe v. Wade, physicians are turning their attention to widely-used drugs that can cause birth defects. At issue: Should these drugs still be prescribed to women of childbearing age if they don’t have the option of terminating their pregnancies?
“Doctors are going to understandably be terrified that a patient may become pregnant using a teratogen that they have prescribed,” said University of Pittsburgh rheumatologist Mehret Birru Talabi, MD, PhD, who works in a state where the future of abortion rights is uncertain. “While this was a feared outcome before Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion provided an escape hatch by which women could avoid having to continue a pregnancy and potentially raise a child with congenital anomalies. I believe that prescribing is going to become much more defensive and conservative. Some clinicians may choose not to prescribe these medications to patients who have childbearing potential, even if they don’t have much risk for pregnancy.”
Other physicians expressed similar concerns in interviews. Duke University, Durham, N.C., rheumatologist Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, fears that physicians will be wary of prescribing a variety of medications – including new ones for which there are few pregnancy data – if abortion is unavailable. “Women who receive these new or teratogenic medications will likely lose their reproductive autonomy and be forced to choose between having sexual relationships with men, obtaining procedures that make them permanently sterile, or using contraception that may cause intolerable side effects,” she said. “I am very concerned that young women with rheumatic disease will now be left with active disease resulting in joint damage and renal failure.”
Abortion is now banned in at least six states, according to The New York Times. That number may rise to 16 as more restrictions become law. Another five states aren’t expected to ban abortion soon but have implemented gestational age limits on abortion or are expected to adopt them. In another nine states, courts or lawmakers will decide whether abortion remains legal.
Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have firm abortion protections in place.
Numerous drugs are considered teratogens, which means they may cause birth defects. Thalidomide is the most infamous, but there are many more, including several used in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology. Among the most widely used teratogenic medications are the acne drugs isotretinoin and methotrexate, which are used to treat a variety of conditions, such as cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriasis.
Dr. Clowse, who helps manage an industry-supported website devoted to reproductive care for women with lupus (www.LupusPregnancy.org), noted that several drugs linked to birth defects and pregnancy loss are commonly prescribed in rheumatology.
“Methotrexate is the most common medication and has been the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis [treatment] for at least two decades,” she said. “Mycophenolate is our best medication to treat lupus nephritis, which is inflammation in the kidneys caused by lupus. This is a common complication for young women with lupus, and all of our guideline-recommended treatment regimens include a medication that causes pregnancy loss and birth defects, either mycophenolate or cyclophosphamide.”
Rheumatologists also prescribe a large number of new drugs for which there are few data about pregnancy risks. “It typically takes about two decades to have sufficient data about the safety of our medications,” she said.
Reflecting the sensitivity of the topic, Dr. Clowse made clear that her opinions don’t represent the views of her institution. She works in North Carolina, where the fate of abortion rights is uncertain, according to The New York Times.
What about alternatives? “The short answer is that some of these medications work really well and sometimes much better than the nonteratogenic alternatives,” said Dr. Birru Talabi. “I’m worried about methotrexate. It has been used to induce abortions but is primarily used in the United States as a highly effective treatment for cancer as well as a myriad of rheumatic diseases. If legislators try to restrict access to methotrexate, we may see increasing disability and even death among people who need this medication but cannot access it.”
Rheumatologists aren’t the only physicians who are worrying about the fates of their patients in a new era of abortion restrictions. Gastroenterologist Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said several teratogenic medications are used in her field to treat constipation, viral hepatitis, and inflammatory bowel disease.
“When treating women of childbearing age, there are usually alternatives. If we do prescribe a medication with a high teratogenic potential, we counsel and document that we have discussed two forms of birth control to avoid pregnancy. We usually do not prescribe a drug with teratogenic potential with the ‘out’ being an abortion if a pregnancy does occur,” she said. However, “if abortion is not even on the table as an option, we may be much less likely to prescribe these medications. This will be particularly true in patients who clearly do not have the means to travel to have an abortion in any situation.”
Abortion is expected to remain legal in Minnesota, where Dr. Kane practices, but it may be restricted or banned in nearby Wisconsin, depending on the state legislature. None of her patients have had abortions after becoming pregnant while taking the medications, she said, although she “did have a patient who because of her religious faith did not have an abortion after exposure and ended up with a stillbirth.”
The crackdown on abortion won’t just pose risks to patients who take potentially dangerous medications, physicians said. Dr. Kane said pregnancy itself is a significant risk for patients with “very active, uncontrolled gastrointestinal conditions where a pregnancy could be harmful to the mother’s health or result in offspring that are very unhealthy.” These include decompensated cirrhosis, uncontrolled Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, refractory gastroparesis, uncontrolled celiac sprue, and chronic pancreatitis, she said.
“There have been times when after shared decisionmaking, a patient with very active inflammatory bowel disease has decided to terminate the pregnancy because of her own ongoing health issues,” she said. “Not having this option will potentially lead to disastrous results.”
Dr. Clowse, the Duke University rheumatologist, echoed Dr. Kane’s concerns about women who are too sick to bear children. “The removal of abortion rights puts the lives and quality of life for women with rheumatic disease at risk. For patients with lupus and other systemic rheumatic disease, pregnancy can be medically catastrophic, leading to permanent harm and even death to the woman and her offspring. I am worried that women in these conditions will die without lifesaving pregnancy terminations, due to worries about the legal consequences for their physicians.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade has also raised the prospect that the court could ultimately allow birth control to be restricted or outlawed.
While the ruling states that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he said that the court should reconsider a 1960s ruling that forbids the banning of contraceptives. Republicans have dismissed concerns about bans being allowed, although Democrats, including the president and vice president, starkly warn that they could happen.
“If we as providers have to be concerned that there will be an unplanned pregnancy because of the lack of access to contraception,” Dr. Kane said, “this will have significant downstream consequences to the kind of care we can provide and might just drive some providers to not give care to female patients at all given this concern.”
The physicians quoted in this article report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Upadacitinib recommended for nonradiographic axSpA in Europe
Upadacitinib may soon be used for the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave it its stamp of approval.
AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 27 that the committee approved the use on June 23. The recommendation to approve market authorization for upadacitinib for nr-axSpA now goes to the European Commission, which is expected to make a decision by the third quarter of 2022.
“The CHMP’s recommendation to approve upadacitinib for patients with nr-axSpA is an important milestone in providing a new treatment option to patients in need,” said Neil Gallagher, MD, vice president of development and chief medical officer of AbbVie. He noted that currently, there are few options to treat symptoms such as inflammation, back pain, and stiffness for these patients.
Officially, the new indication for upadacitinib (Rinvoq) 15 mg once daily is for the treatment of active nr-axSpA in adult patients with objective signs of inflammation, as indicated by elevated C-reactive protein and/or MRI, whose condition has responded inadequately to NSAIDs.
Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor that in human cellular assays preferentially inhibits signaling by JAK1 or JAK1/3.
In the European Union, upadacitinib is currently approved for use in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In addition to these indications, it is approved in the United States for ulcerative colitis but not for nr-axSpA.
The committee based its decision on the results of the nr-axSpA study within the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial, recently reported at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.
The nr-axSpA study met the primary endpoint of a 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) and the first 12 of 14 ranked secondary endpoints, according to AbbVie.
The most commonly reported adverse reactions with upadacitinib 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infections, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels, elevated alanine transaminase levels, bronchitis, nausea, cough, elevated aspartate transaminase levels, and hypercholesterolemia. These occurred in 2% or more of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in clinical trials.
The safety profile of upadacitinib with long-term treatment was generally similar to the safety profile during the placebo-controlled period across indications, AbbVie said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Upadacitinib may soon be used for the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave it its stamp of approval.
AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 27 that the committee approved the use on June 23. The recommendation to approve market authorization for upadacitinib for nr-axSpA now goes to the European Commission, which is expected to make a decision by the third quarter of 2022.
“The CHMP’s recommendation to approve upadacitinib for patients with nr-axSpA is an important milestone in providing a new treatment option to patients in need,” said Neil Gallagher, MD, vice president of development and chief medical officer of AbbVie. He noted that currently, there are few options to treat symptoms such as inflammation, back pain, and stiffness for these patients.
Officially, the new indication for upadacitinib (Rinvoq) 15 mg once daily is for the treatment of active nr-axSpA in adult patients with objective signs of inflammation, as indicated by elevated C-reactive protein and/or MRI, whose condition has responded inadequately to NSAIDs.
Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor that in human cellular assays preferentially inhibits signaling by JAK1 or JAK1/3.
In the European Union, upadacitinib is currently approved for use in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In addition to these indications, it is approved in the United States for ulcerative colitis but not for nr-axSpA.
The committee based its decision on the results of the nr-axSpA study within the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial, recently reported at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.
The nr-axSpA study met the primary endpoint of a 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) and the first 12 of 14 ranked secondary endpoints, according to AbbVie.
The most commonly reported adverse reactions with upadacitinib 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infections, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels, elevated alanine transaminase levels, bronchitis, nausea, cough, elevated aspartate transaminase levels, and hypercholesterolemia. These occurred in 2% or more of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in clinical trials.
The safety profile of upadacitinib with long-term treatment was generally similar to the safety profile during the placebo-controlled period across indications, AbbVie said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Upadacitinib may soon be used for the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) after the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) gave it its stamp of approval.
AbbVie, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on June 27 that the committee approved the use on June 23. The recommendation to approve market authorization for upadacitinib for nr-axSpA now goes to the European Commission, which is expected to make a decision by the third quarter of 2022.
“The CHMP’s recommendation to approve upadacitinib for patients with nr-axSpA is an important milestone in providing a new treatment option to patients in need,” said Neil Gallagher, MD, vice president of development and chief medical officer of AbbVie. He noted that currently, there are few options to treat symptoms such as inflammation, back pain, and stiffness for these patients.
Officially, the new indication for upadacitinib (Rinvoq) 15 mg once daily is for the treatment of active nr-axSpA in adult patients with objective signs of inflammation, as indicated by elevated C-reactive protein and/or MRI, whose condition has responded inadequately to NSAIDs.
Upadacitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor that in human cellular assays preferentially inhibits signaling by JAK1 or JAK1/3.
In the European Union, upadacitinib is currently approved for use in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis, active ankylosing spondylitis, and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. In addition to these indications, it is approved in the United States for ulcerative colitis but not for nr-axSpA.
The committee based its decision on the results of the nr-axSpA study within the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial, recently reported at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.
The nr-axSpA study met the primary endpoint of a 40% improvement in Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS40) and the first 12 of 14 ranked secondary endpoints, according to AbbVie.
The most commonly reported adverse reactions with upadacitinib 15 mg were upper respiratory tract infections, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels, elevated alanine transaminase levels, bronchitis, nausea, cough, elevated aspartate transaminase levels, and hypercholesterolemia. These occurred in 2% or more of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in clinical trials.
The safety profile of upadacitinib with long-term treatment was generally similar to the safety profile during the placebo-controlled period across indications, AbbVie said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treat-to-target strategy with tapering proves effective in PsA and axSpA
Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.
“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”
The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”
Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’
A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.
At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.
The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).
The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).
Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.
Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.
“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”
The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.
“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.
The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.
“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”
This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.
“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”
The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”
Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’
A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.
At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.
The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).
The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).
Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.
Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.
“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”
The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.
“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.
The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.
“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”
This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
Aiming for a disease activity target while reducing biologic therapy could be a winning approach for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to the results of a new study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The findings show that a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy with tapering using a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor produces results that are noninferior to a T2T strategy that doesn’t include tapering in these patients.
“Our study has for the first time shown that a treat-to-target tapering strategy is just as good as full-dose continuation, while reducing medication use substantially,” first author Celia Michielsens, MD, a PhD student and researcher at Sint Maartenskliniek in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview before her presentation of the study during an oral abstract session at the congress. “Stepwise tapering is also better than fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation, since it is much more individualized.”
The study is now published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In the randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority study, researchers enrolled patients with PsA or axSpA who were using a TNF inhibitor such as etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, and had stable low disease activity for at least 6 months. Patients needed to have a Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) of 3.2 or less, or an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of at 2.1 or less. In cases of flare, patients were treated with NSAIDs and/or glucorticoids, and if they still had not reached low disease activity after a month, their previous TNF inhibitor dose was reinstated to the last effective interval or dosage, which was maintained throughout the study period. When the patient was already using a full TNF-inhibitor dose or if dose adjustment did not suffice, patients were switched to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD).
Participants were randomized, from January 2019 to June 2021, to a tapering or a nontapering T2T strategy in a 2:1 fashion. Then researchers then followed them for 12 months and aimed to determine if the tapering strategy proved noninferior to not tapering within a predefined 20% margin for noninferiority, which Dr. Michielsens said was derived from other studies and what her group determined to be “an acceptable risk.”
Results show strategy is ‘feasible in daily clinical care’
A total of 81 patients – 42 with PsA and 39 with axSpA – were in the group with tapering, and 41 were in the group without tapering: 22 with PsA and 19 with axSpA.
At 12 months, researchers found that 69% of the patients in the group with tapering had low disease activity, measured via the PASDAS and ASDAS, compared with 73% in patients who did not taper. And those in the tapering group saw their medication use dramatically reduced. At the 12-month mark, they were taking just 53% of the defined daily dose for maintenance, compared with 91% of the defined daily dose for the group that didn’t taper.
The researchers were able to successfully taper 72% of the patients in the tapering group, with 28% of them discontinuing their TNF-inhibitor medication entirely. The incidence of flares was 85% in the tapering group and 78% in the nontapering group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .32).
The start of a new medication or an increase in use of an existing medication was more frequent in the tapering group, and significantly so for NSAIDs. An increase in NSAID use was seen in 54% of the tapering group and in just 24% of the nontapering group (P = .002).
Conventional synthetic DMARD use went up in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was only among the PsA patients and the change in use was not statistically significant. There were also more frequent increases in glucocorticoid use in the tapering group, compared with the nontapering group, but this was not significant.
Dr. Michielsens said the findings show the value of an individualized approach in treating patients with PsA or axSpA.
“Our study – and those [studies] in rheumatoid arthritis earlier – deliver the highest quality of evidence that disease activity–guided dose personalization can, and in fact should, be used in clinical practice,” she said. “Our pragmatic treat-to-target tapering strategy is feasible in daily clinical care, although treat-to-target using PASDAS and ASDAS needs some implementation. In shared decision-making with patients, a 50% reduction in TNFi use is obtainable, while maintaining low disease activity.”
The increase in the use of NSAIDs is something to be aware of, but it is “not concerning,” Dr. Michielsens added. She pointed out that the NSAID use was typically temporary, used when flares arose, and that the drugs are effective, safe, and inexpensive. She also noted that the use of TNF blockers decreased more than the use of NSAIDs increased.
“This seems a perfectly acceptable trade-off that can be discussed with your patient,” she said.
The 12-month duration of the study is likely long enough to show that the tapering strategy works, Dr. Michielsens said. In rheumatoid arthritis studies, for example, differences in strategies didn’t change after 1 year.
“That said, we are doing an observational extension study to provide more insights in the long-term effects of this treat-to-target strategy,” she said. “At the end of this summer, all patients will have completed their extended follow-up period – a 12-month observational period – so hopefully we can present the results next year at EULAR.”
This study received funding from ReumaNederland. Dr. Michielsens did not have any financial interests to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Diagnostic axSpA MRI features differ in men and women
MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.
“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”
Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.
Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.
The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.
Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.
Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.
Clear differences in MRI markers
“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.
The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).
“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.
Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.
“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.
DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.
Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
‘Remarkably different’ results
“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.
Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.
“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”
Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”
However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”
Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”
Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.
“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.
However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”
Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.
MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.
“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”
Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.
Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.
The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.
Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.
Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.
Clear differences in MRI markers
“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.
The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).
“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.
Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.
“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.
DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.
Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
‘Remarkably different’ results
“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.
Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.
“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”
Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”
However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”
Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”
Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.
“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.
However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”
Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.
MRI criteria used to diagnose axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) may require gender-specific revision, according to research conducted at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Although established MRI markers were detected in both sexes, their prevalence was substantially different in some cases – ankylosis and fat metaplasia were more prevalent in male than female patients, for example, while sclerosis was far more common in females.
“There’s increasing evidence in the literature and awareness in clinical practice that there are some sex differences in the clinical presentation of axSpA,” said radiologist Sevtap Tugce Ulas, MD, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
She presented the first results of a study examining the diagnostic performance of MRI findings for men and women. “Men have a high risk of structural damage, while women are more likely to be affected by peripheral manifestations with a higher risk for pain, stiffness, and fatigue.”
Joint biomechanics are different in men and women, she pointed out, which might explain some of the disparities. She observed that diagnostic delay – a known problem in axSpA – was “significantly longer” in female patients.
Dr. Ulas and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of participants in six prospective axSpA cohorts. From a total of more than 1,100 participants, the researchers identified 684 who had both a clinical diagnosis and complete imaging data available for evaluation. The study population included 379 men and women with and 305 men and women without axSpA.
The mean age overall in all groups was 37 years, with axSpA patients more likely than controls to have elevated C-reactive protein levels; levels were also higher in men with axSpA, compared with in women with axSpA.
Men with axSpA also were more likely than women to be HLA-B27 positive (91% vs. 79%), but there were similar mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index scores recorded (4.4 vs. 4.6) among the subjects with axSpA.
Two experienced radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, scored the MRI images independently of each other, looking for the presence of ankylosis; erosions; sclerosis; fat metaplasia; and bone marrow edema in the ventral, mid, and dorsal regions of the sacroiliac joints. Any disagreement between the two reviewers was assessed by a third, more experienced radiologist.
Clear differences in MRI markers
“If you look in detail, we found no major sex-specific differences for erosion and bone marrow edema,” Dr. Ulas reported.
The situation was quite different for other MRI parameters examined. Indeed, more men than women had evidence of ankylosis (24.3% vs. 7.4%) and fat metaplasia (58.8% vs. 42.6%). Conversely, women were more likely than men to have evidence of sclerosis (75.0% vs. 57.6%).
“To make the performance more easily comparable, we calculated a diagnostic odds ratio, which is simply positive likelihood ratio divided by negative likelihood ratio,” Dr. Ulas said.
Doing this showed that the presence of ankylosis had “an almost 10 times stronger performance in men,” with a DOR of 40.1 versus 4.7 for women.
“Interestingly, this was not only caused by low prevalence in females, but also by high rates of false positives,” she said.
DOR for the other parameters in men and women were 18.6 and 6.3 for fat metaplasia, 2.5 and 3.0 for sclerosis, 17.6 and 11.1 for joint erosion, and 2.5 and 3.7 for bone edema.
Overall, diagnostic accuracy was improved only when middle and dorsal lesions were considered.
‘Remarkably different’ results
“By definition, these patients have the same disease,” said Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Germany).
Yet these are “remarkably different” findings, Dr. Schulze-Koops said during a closing highlights session of the congress.
Current imaging practices don’t differentiate between the sexes but perhaps they might need to, he said, because these data suggest “female patients have a different MRI pattern from what we learn from the textbooks.
“[The investigators] say diagnostic performance of established imaging markers on MRI is significantly lower in female axSpA patients, and we should consider this when we are in the situation where we question the disease.”
Marta Mosca, MD, PhD, of the University of Pisa (Italy) and who cochaired the session in which Dr. Ulas had presented the findings commented: “I think is very interesting. We always talk about gender differences in treatment and in the assessment.”
However, Dr. Mosca asked if there were plans to study other patient cohorts, notably those not just referred by a rheumatologist, as that was “a big limitation.”
Dr. Ulas replied: “I think we need follow-up studies to investigate this problem, because we know that there are differences in the clinical presentation and also in the imaging, and this is an important point.”
Of course, there are other limitations, Dr. Ulas said, such as the sole use of conventional T1-weighted spin echo sequences. Although often routinely used in clinical practice, this imaging technique can lead to overestimation of structural damage. Moreover, “subtle differences might have been missed” in bone marrow edema because it wasn’t included in the semiquantitative scoring system used.
“Most importantly, the MRI images under investigation were also used in the diagnostic process, which carries the risk of circular reasoning,” Dr. Ulas said.
However, there are clearly some differences in imaging appearance between men and women, and “we show a significantly lower performance of many typical MRI findings in women,” Dr. Ulas said. “We hope that these findings might spark a critical discussion on the appropriateness of sex-blind classification criteria for axSpA, and hopefully, eventually lead to refined criteria for both sexes.”
Dr. Ulas had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Schulze-Koops and Dr. Mosca were not involved in the study and had no relevant disclosures.
FROM THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Bimekizumab tames active ankylosing spondylitis in BE MOBILE 2
COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.
At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
IL-17 inhibitor times 2
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.
The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.
Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
All endpoints met
The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).
All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.
Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.
In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).
The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.
Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.
‘Promising results’
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.
“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.
At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
IL-17 inhibitor times 2
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.
The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.
Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
All endpoints met
The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).
All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.
Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.
In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).
The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.
Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.
‘Promising results’
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.
“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Use of the dual interleukin (IL)–17 inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, reported investigators in the BE MOBILE 2 phase 3 trial.
At least half of all patients achieved an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1 by week 24 of treatment with bimekizumab, and there were marked reductions in objective signs of inflammation, reported Désiréé van der Heijde, MD, PhD, of Leiden (Netherlands) University Medical Center.
“The safety we have seen in this trial was consistent with what we have seen [with bimekizumab] in other trials and other diseases,” she said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
IL-17 inhibitor times 2
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin 1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
In the BE MOBILE 2 trial, investigators enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who had ankylosing spondylitis, who met modified New York criteria, who had active disease at screening and at baseline, as defined by having a Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score of 4 or more and spinal pain of 4 or more on a scale of 0-10, and whose disease failed to respond to two different NSAIDs or who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to NSAIDs.
The patients were randomly assigned on a 2:1 basis to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (221 patients) or placebo (111 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients were switched over at 16 weeks to bimekizumab maintenance for up to 1 year of total treatment.
Dr. Van der Heijde reported 24-week data from the trial, including data from 8 weeks of additional follow-up.
All endpoints met
The trial met its primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40) at week 16. There was a 44.8% improvement with bimekizumab, compared with 22.6% with placebo (P < .001).
All secondary endpoints also favored the bimekizumab arm, including ASAS 40 among patients who had not previously received a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha inhibitor, ASAS 20, BASDAI functional index, ankylosing spondylitis quality-of-life index, and others.
Responses to bimekizumab were consistent across subpopulations of patients with or without prior TNF-alpha inhibitor exposure, Dr. van der Heidje said.
In addition, use of bimekizumab was associated with a significant improvement from baseline, compared with placebo, in objective measures of inflammation, including MRI spine Berlin score at week 16 (mean, –2.3 vs. 0; P < .001), Spondylitis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI sacroiliac joint score at week 16 (mean, –5.6 vs. 1.1), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein at week 16 (mean, 2.4 vs. 6.3 mg/L; P < .001).
The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, and oral candidiasis, all of which were more common in the bimekizumab arm, as well as headache, the incidence of which was similar between the arms.
Overall, 6.4% of patients taking bimekizumab had fungal infections, compared with none in the placebo group. The infections were mild or moderate, localized, and mucocutaneous in nature. Only two patients discontinued the drug because of fungal infections: one for oral candidiasis, and one for esophageal candidiasis.
‘Promising results’
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that the data looked very good.
“These are the first phase 3 data on dual inhibition of IL-17A and F with bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis, and the data are really promising,” he said. “For nonradiographic disease, the data also look very promising, and when we’re looking into the future, it might be a therapeutic option for us as treating rheumatologists.”
The study was funded by UCB Pharma. Dr. van der Heijde has received consulting fees from the company and others. Dr. Proft has consulted for and has been on the speaker’s bureau for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Upadacitinib effective against nonradiographic AxSpA
COPENHAGEN – The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with significant improvements in disease activity, pain, function, and quality of life, compared with placebo, in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), results of the first efficacy analysis of the phase 3, randomized SELECT-AXIS-2 trial showed.
The trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS 40) response criteria in the prespecified efficacy analysis at week 14, reported Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Ghent (Belgium) University.
In all, 45% of patients randomized to receive upadacitinib achieved an ASAS 40, compared with 23% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).
“This is the first study showing efficacy and showing that the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib might be a therapeutic option in patients with active, nonradiographic spondyloarthritis,” Van den Bosch said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Although JAK inhibitors have previously been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial is the first to evaluate a JAK inhibitor in nonradiographic axSpA, he added.
Study details
Patients 18 years and older with rheumatologist-diagnosed nr-axSpA were eligible for the study if they also met 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but not the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria; had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein above the upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening; and had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and patient-assessment of total back pain scores of 4 or greater based on a 0-10 numeric rating scale at study entry.
Patients were screened with MRI imaging of the spine and x-rays of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and then randomized to receive either placebo (157 patients) or upadacitinib 15 mg daily (158 patients) for 52 weeks. At the end of 52 weeks, all patients on upadacitinib will continue on the drug at the same dose level, and those assigned to placebo will be switched over to 15 mg upadacitinib daily maintenance.
As well as meeting the primary endpoint at week 14, response rates with the JAK inhibitor were higher at all time points over this initial time period, Dr. Van den Bosch noted.
Most targets hit
Of 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, 12 were statistically better with upadacitinib, including change from baseline in patient’s assessment of total back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Low Disease Activity, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score for sacroiliac joints.
Only the BASDAI and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score were not significantly better with the JAK inhibitor.
The safety of upadacitinib in this setting was consistent with its known safety profile, Dr. Van den Bosch said.
Approximately half of all patients in each trial arm had an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in four patients assigned to upadacitinib versus two on placebo, and serious adverse events requiring drug discontinuation occurred in two and four patients, respectively.
‘Important’ data
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charite University Hospital, Berlin, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were not surprising.
“We know the efficacy of upadacitinib already in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and from all the other drugs that we also know that are effective in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis that are similarly effective in nonradiographic disease,” he said.
“I think it is really important because it is the first data on JAK inhibition also in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis – an important step,” said Dr. Proft, who was comoderator of the oral abstract session where Van den Bosch reported the data.
The trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie and others. Dr. Proft disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie as well.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with significant improvements in disease activity, pain, function, and quality of life, compared with placebo, in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), results of the first efficacy analysis of the phase 3, randomized SELECT-AXIS-2 trial showed.
The trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS 40) response criteria in the prespecified efficacy analysis at week 14, reported Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Ghent (Belgium) University.
In all, 45% of patients randomized to receive upadacitinib achieved an ASAS 40, compared with 23% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).
“This is the first study showing efficacy and showing that the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib might be a therapeutic option in patients with active, nonradiographic spondyloarthritis,” Van den Bosch said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Although JAK inhibitors have previously been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial is the first to evaluate a JAK inhibitor in nonradiographic axSpA, he added.
Study details
Patients 18 years and older with rheumatologist-diagnosed nr-axSpA were eligible for the study if they also met 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but not the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria; had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein above the upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening; and had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and patient-assessment of total back pain scores of 4 or greater based on a 0-10 numeric rating scale at study entry.
Patients were screened with MRI imaging of the spine and x-rays of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and then randomized to receive either placebo (157 patients) or upadacitinib 15 mg daily (158 patients) for 52 weeks. At the end of 52 weeks, all patients on upadacitinib will continue on the drug at the same dose level, and those assigned to placebo will be switched over to 15 mg upadacitinib daily maintenance.
As well as meeting the primary endpoint at week 14, response rates with the JAK inhibitor were higher at all time points over this initial time period, Dr. Van den Bosch noted.
Most targets hit
Of 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, 12 were statistically better with upadacitinib, including change from baseline in patient’s assessment of total back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Low Disease Activity, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score for sacroiliac joints.
Only the BASDAI and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score were not significantly better with the JAK inhibitor.
The safety of upadacitinib in this setting was consistent with its known safety profile, Dr. Van den Bosch said.
Approximately half of all patients in each trial arm had an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in four patients assigned to upadacitinib versus two on placebo, and serious adverse events requiring drug discontinuation occurred in two and four patients, respectively.
‘Important’ data
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charite University Hospital, Berlin, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were not surprising.
“We know the efficacy of upadacitinib already in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and from all the other drugs that we also know that are effective in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis that are similarly effective in nonradiographic disease,” he said.
“I think it is really important because it is the first data on JAK inhibition also in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis – an important step,” said Dr. Proft, who was comoderator of the oral abstract session where Van den Bosch reported the data.
The trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie and others. Dr. Proft disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie as well.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq, AbbVie) was associated with significant improvements in disease activity, pain, function, and quality of life, compared with placebo, in patients with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), results of the first efficacy analysis of the phase 3, randomized SELECT-AXIS-2 trial showed.
The trial met its primary endpoint of an improvement of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 40% (ASAS 40) response criteria in the prespecified efficacy analysis at week 14, reported Filip Van den Bosch, MD, PhD, Ghent (Belgium) University.
In all, 45% of patients randomized to receive upadacitinib achieved an ASAS 40, compared with 23% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).
“This is the first study showing efficacy and showing that the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib might be a therapeutic option in patients with active, nonradiographic spondyloarthritis,” Van den Bosch said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Although JAK inhibitors have previously been shown to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis, the SELECT-AXIS-2 trial is the first to evaluate a JAK inhibitor in nonradiographic axSpA, he added.
Study details
Patients 18 years and older with rheumatologist-diagnosed nr-axSpA were eligible for the study if they also met 2009 ASAS classification criteria for axSpA but not the radiologic criterion of modified New York criteria; had objective signs of active inflammation consistent with axSpA on MRI of the sacroiliac joints and/or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein above the upper limit of normal (2.87 mg/L) at screening; and had Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and patient-assessment of total back pain scores of 4 or greater based on a 0-10 numeric rating scale at study entry.
Patients were screened with MRI imaging of the spine and x-rays of the sacroiliac joints and spine, and then randomized to receive either placebo (157 patients) or upadacitinib 15 mg daily (158 patients) for 52 weeks. At the end of 52 weeks, all patients on upadacitinib will continue on the drug at the same dose level, and those assigned to placebo will be switched over to 15 mg upadacitinib daily maintenance.
As well as meeting the primary endpoint at week 14, response rates with the JAK inhibitor were higher at all time points over this initial time period, Dr. Van den Bosch noted.
Most targets hit
Of 14 multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, 12 were statistically better with upadacitinib, including change from baseline in patient’s assessment of total back pain, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, Low Disease Activity, Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life, and MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada score for sacroiliac joints.
Only the BASDAI and Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score were not significantly better with the JAK inhibitor.
The safety of upadacitinib in this setting was consistent with its known safety profile, Dr. Van den Bosch said.
Approximately half of all patients in each trial arm had an adverse event. Serious adverse events were reported in four patients assigned to upadacitinib versus two on placebo, and serious adverse events requiring drug discontinuation occurred in two and four patients, respectively.
‘Important’ data
Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charite University Hospital, Berlin, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the findings were not surprising.
“We know the efficacy of upadacitinib already in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, and from all the other drugs that we also know that are effective in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis that are similarly effective in nonradiographic disease,” he said.
“I think it is really important because it is the first data on JAK inhibition also in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis – an important step,” said Dr. Proft, who was comoderator of the oral abstract session where Van den Bosch reported the data.
The trial was supported by AbbVie. Dr. Van den Bosch disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie and others. Dr. Proft disclosed speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie as well.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
Abortion debate may affect Rx decisions for pregnant women
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.
The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.
This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.
With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.
Instead, a scenario may arise in which the patient – and their physician – may opt not to treat at all with an otherwise lifesaving medication, experts told this news organization.
The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions
A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.
Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.
More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.
Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.
Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
Chilling effect on prescribing
Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*
However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.
Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.
Certain teratogenic medications are associated with a high risk of abortion even though this isn’t their primary use, noted Christina Chambers, PhD, MPH, co-director of the Center for Better Beginnings and associate director with the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
“I don’t think anyone would intentionally take these drugs to induce spontaneous abortion. But if the drugs pose a risk for it, I can see how the laws might be stretched” to include them, said Dr. Chambers.
Methotrexate, a medication for autoimmune disorders, has a high risk of spontaneous abortion. So do acne medications such as isotretinoin.
Patients are usually told they’re not supposed to get pregnant on these drugs because there’s a high risk of pregnancy loss and risk of malformations and potential learning problems in the fetus. But many pregnancies aren’t planned, said Dr. Chambers. “Patients may forget about the side effects or think their birth control will protect them. And the next time they refill the medication, they may not hear about the warnings again.”
With a restrictive abortion law or ban in effect, a woman might think: “I won’t take this drug because if there’s any potential that I might get pregnant, I won’t have the option to abort an at-risk pregnancy.” Women and their doctors, for that matter, don’t want to put themselves in this position, said Dr. Chambers.
Rheumatologist Megan Clowse, MD, who prescribes several medications that potentially cause major birth defects and pregnancy loss, worries about the ramifications of these accumulating bans.
“Methotrexate has been a leading drug for us for decades for rheumatoid arthritis. Mycophenolate is a vital drug for lupus,” said Dr. Clowse, associate professor of medicine at Duke University’s division of rheumatology and immunology.
Both methotrexate and mycophenolate pose about a 40% risk of pregnancy loss and significantly increase the risk for birth defects. “I’m definitely concerned that there might be doctors or women who elect not to use those medications in women of reproductive age because of the potential risk for pregnancy and absence of abortion rights,” said Dr. Clowse.
These situations might force women to use contraceptives they don’t want to use, such as hormonal implants or intrauterine devices, she added. Another side effect is that women and their partners may decide to abstain from sex.
The iPLEDGE factor
Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.
For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.
With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.
Nevertheless, as a physician who regularly prescribes medications like isotretinoin in women of childbearing age, “it’s terrifying to me that a woman wouldn’t have the option to terminate the pregnancy if a teratogenic effect from the medication caused a severe birth defect,” said Dr. Murase.
Dermatologists use other teratogenic medications such as thalidomide, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate for chronic dermatologic disease like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.
The situation is especially tricky for dermatologists since most patients – about 80% – never discuss their pregnancy with their specialist prior to pregnancy initiation. Dr. Murase recalls when a patient with chronic plaque psoriasis on methotrexate in her late 40s became pregnant and had an abortion even before Dr. Murase became aware of the pregnancy.
Because dermatologists routinely prescribe long-term medications for chronic diseases like acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis, it is important to have a conversation regarding the risks and benefits of long-term medication should a pregnancy occur in any woman of childbearing age, she said.
Fewer women in clinical trials?
Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.
A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.
The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.
This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.
Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.
The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
The upside of restrictions?
If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.
Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.
If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.
This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”
Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”
Talking to patients about choices
Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.
Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.
Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.
“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.
To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.
In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”
When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”
Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”
Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.
*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com .
‘Shielding’ status provides best indicator of COVID-19 mortality in U.K. arthritis population
Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.
In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.
The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).
Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.
This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.
Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice
“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.
“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.
“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”
Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.
As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.
The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
What does this all mean?
Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.
“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”
Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.
“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.
Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.
Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”
Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.
In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.
The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).
Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.
This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.
Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice
“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.
“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.
“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”
Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.
As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.
The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
What does this all mean?
Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.
“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”
Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.
“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.
Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.
Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”
Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
Being identified as someone that was advised to stay at home and shield, or keep away from face-to-face interactions with others, during the COVID-19 pandemic was indicative of an increased risk for dying from COVID-19 within 28 days of infection, a U.K. study of inflammatory arthritis patients versus the general population suggests.
In fact, shielding status was the highest ranked of all the risk factors identified for early mortality from COVID-19, with a hazard ratio of 1.52 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-1.64) comparing people with and without inflammatory arthritis (IA) who had tested positive.
The list of risk factors associated with higher mortality in the IA patients versus the general population also included diabetes (HR, 1.38), smoking (HR, 1.27), hypertension (HR, 1.19), glucocorticoid use (HR, 1.17), and cancer (HR, 1.10), as well as increasing age (HR, 1.08) and body mass index (HR, 1.01).
Also important was the person’s prior hospitalization history, with those needing in-hospital care in the year running up to their admission for COVID-19 associated with a 34% higher risk for death, and being hospitalized previously with a serious infection was associated with a 20% higher risk.
This has more to do people’s overall vulnerability than their IA, suggested the team behind the findings, who also found that the risk of catching COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients with IA than the general population (3.5% vs. 6%), presumably because of shielding.
Examining the risks for COVID-19 in real-life practice
“COVID-19 has caused over 10 million deaths,” Roxanne Cooksey, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. “It’s greatly affected vulnerable individuals, which includes individuals with IA, this is due to their compromised immune system and increased risk of infection and the medications that they take to manage their conditions.
“Previous studies have had mixed results about whether people with IA have an increased risk of poor outcome,” added Dr. Cooksey, who is a postdoctoral researcher in the division of infection and immunity at Cardiff (Wales) University.
“So, our research question looks to investigate inflammatory arthritis – that’s rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis – to see whether the conditions themselves or indeed their medications predispose individuals to an increased risk of contracting COVID or even more adverse outcomes.”
Dr. Cooksey and colleagues looked specifically at COVID-19 infection rates and outcomes in adults living in Wales during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020 to May 2021). As such they used routinely collected, anonymized health data from the SAIL Databank and performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study. In total, there were 1,966 people with inflammatory arthritis identified as having COVID-19 and 166,602 people without IA but who had COVID-19 in the study population.
As might be expected, people with inflammatory arthritis who tested positive for COVID-19 were older than those testing positive in the general population, at a mean of 62 years versus 46 years. They were also more likely to have been advised to shield (49.4% versus 4.6%), which in the United Kingdom constituted of receiving a letter telling them about the importance of social distancing, wearing a mask when out in public, and quarantining themselves at home whenever possible.
The main outcomes were hospitalizations and mortality within 28 days of COVID-19 infection. Considering the overall inflammatory arthritis population, rates of both outcomes were higher versus the general population. And when the researchers analyzed the risks according to the type of inflammatory arthritis, the associations were not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis for people with any of the inflammatory arthritis diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis (n = 1,283), psoriatic arthritis (n = 514), or ankylosing spondylitis (n = 246). Some patients had more than one inflammatory arthritis diagnosis.
What does this all mean?
Dr. Cooksey conceded that there were lots of limitations to the data collected – from misclassification bias to data possibly not have been recorded completely or missing because of the disruption to health care services during the early stages of the pandemic. Patients may have been told to shield but not actually shielded, she observed, and maybe because a lack of testing COVID-19 cases were missed or people could have been asymptomatic or unable to be tested.
“The study supports the role of shielding in inflammatory arthritis,” Dr. Cooksey said, particularly in those with RA and the risk factors associated with an increased risk in death. However, that may not mean the entire population, she suggested, saying that “refining the criteria for shielding will help mitigate the negative effects of the entire IA population.”
Senior team member Ernest Choy, MD, added his thoughts, saying that, rather than giving generic shielding recommendations to all IA patients, not everyone has the same risk, so maybe not everyone needs to shield to the same level.
“Psoriatic arthritis patients and ankylosing spondylitis patients are younger, so they really don’t have as high a risk like patients with rheumatoid arthritis,” he said.
Dr. Choy, who is professor of rheumatology at the Cardiff Institute of Infection & Immunity, commented that it was not surprising to find that a prior serious infection was a risk for COVID-19 mortality. This risk factor was examined because of the known association between biologic use and the risk for serious infection.
Moreover, he said that, “if you have a serious comorbidity that requires you to get admitted to hospital, that is a reflection of your vulnerability.”
Dr. Cooksey and Dr. Choy had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM BSR 2022