Ankylosing spondylitis

CLEVELAND – About half (52%) of patients living with both axial spondyloarthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) reached clinical remission of axSpA at 12 months after starting a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), researchers have found.

The disease course for axSpA among patients with IBD who start anti-TNF agents is not well understood.

Rahul S. Dalal, MD, an advanced fellow in IBD with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues studied whether certain clinical factors were associated with remission of axSpA after patients with axSpA, who also had Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), started anti-TNF therapy.
 

Short IBD duration, adalimumab linked with higher remission odds

They found that those who had IBD for less than 5 years and those taking the TNFi adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), as opposed to another TNFi, had a higher likelihood of reaching axSpA remission at 1 year. The odds ratios calculated for those factors were statistically significant.

Dr. Dalal said that most of the patients in the study (70%) were prescribed adalimumab, and because the study didn’t compare TNFis head to head, it’s hard to say whether adalimumab should be the preferred treatment for these patients.

“But it’s an interesting question that should be addressed in a bigger study,” he said.

Other TNFis included infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) in 27%, golimumab (Simponi) in 2%, and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in 1%.

He presented the results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Study details

Included in the retrospective cohort study were 82 adults with IBD and either ankylosing spondylitis or sacroiliitis who started anti-TNF agents approved for IBD between January 2012 and October 2021 at a large academic center.

Clinical remission of axSpA was the primary outcome, defined as the absence or adequate control of pain and/or stiffness related to axSpA as documented in the rheumatology note 1 year (+/– 2 months) after starting anti-TNF agents.

The secondary outcome was clinical remission of IBD, defined as 2 or less on the simple clinical colitis activity index, a score of less than 5 on the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, or provider assessment with no use of oral or intravenous glucocorticoids for 30 days. Dr. Dalal said 74% in the study reached that endpoint in the study period.

“Some patients had good response to anti-TNF treatments for their IBD but not necessarily for their spondyloarthritis,” he explained.

There were insufficient observations to calculate odds ratios for the variables, including Hispanic ethnicity, endoscopic inflammation, and prior history of using vedolizumab (Entyvio), secukinumab (Cosentyx), and ustekinumab (Stelara), the authors noted.

Dr. Dalal said it’s important to study this population because patients with IBD and axSpA take some of the same medications, but it’s not known how each medication acts in patients.

“We don’t have much data to tell us who’s going to respond to treatments from both diseases simultaneously,” he said.
 

Conclusions called ‘reassuring’

Jean Liew, MD, a spondyloarthritis specialist at Boston University, who was not part of the study, noted that the team reported univariate associations of clinical factors with achievement of clinical axSpA remission, but no multivariable analyses with adjustment for potential confounders.

She said the finding of half the patients achieving clinical remission is “reassuring, as anecdotally we may find that patients with IBD-associated spondyloarthritis tend to have more difficult-to-treat symptoms as well as more limited treatment options. For example, they cannot use [interleukin]-17 inhibitors.”

She noted the study is small and descriptive and further analyses are limited by the small number of patients.

“I think if a study of the same type could be performed at a larger scale with larger numbers, it could generate more data on which type of patient with IBD-associated spondyloarthritis is more likely to have a good response after starting a TNF inhibitor,” she said. “Of course, the other question is how long those patients would have good disease control while on the TNF inhibitor. What is the persistence of the medication? This study doesn’t ask or answer that question.”

Dr. Dalal added that in future research it will be important to look at response to medications beyond TNFis, especially Janus kinase inhibitors.

That will help show “whether there is a treatment algorithm that can be tailored to this population in terms of what agents to choose first,” he said. “I think we need multicenter studies to do this.”

Dr. Dalal has received grant funding from Pfizer and Janssen and has served as a consultant for Centaur Labs and Janssen. Dr. Liew has no relevant financial relationships.

CLEVELAND – About half (52%) of patients living with both axial spondyloarthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) reached clinical remission of axSpA at 12 months after starting a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), researchers have found.

The disease course for axSpA among patients with IBD who start anti-TNF agents is not well understood.

Rahul S. Dalal, MD, an advanced fellow in IBD with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues studied whether certain clinical factors were associated with remission of axSpA after patients with axSpA, who also had Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), started anti-TNF therapy.
 

Short IBD duration, adalimumab linked with higher remission odds

They found that those who had IBD for less than 5 years and those taking the TNFi adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), as opposed to another TNFi, had a higher likelihood of reaching axSpA remission at 1 year. The odds ratios calculated for those factors were statistically significant.

Dr. Dalal said that most of the patients in the study (70%) were prescribed adalimumab, and because the study didn’t compare TNFis head to head, it’s hard to say whether adalimumab should be the preferred treatment for these patients.

“But it’s an interesting question that should be addressed in a bigger study,” he said.

Other TNFis included infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) in 27%, golimumab (Simponi) in 2%, and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in 1%.

He presented the results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Study details

Included in the retrospective cohort study were 82 adults with IBD and either ankylosing spondylitis or sacroiliitis who started anti-TNF agents approved for IBD between January 2012 and October 2021 at a large academic center.

Clinical remission of axSpA was the primary outcome, defined as the absence or adequate control of pain and/or stiffness related to axSpA as documented in the rheumatology note 1 year (+/– 2 months) after starting anti-TNF agents.

The secondary outcome was clinical remission of IBD, defined as 2 or less on the simple clinical colitis activity index, a score of less than 5 on the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, or provider assessment with no use of oral or intravenous glucocorticoids for 30 days. Dr. Dalal said 74% in the study reached that endpoint in the study period.

“Some patients had good response to anti-TNF treatments for their IBD but not necessarily for their spondyloarthritis,” he explained.

There were insufficient observations to calculate odds ratios for the variables, including Hispanic ethnicity, endoscopic inflammation, and prior history of using vedolizumab (Entyvio), secukinumab (Cosentyx), and ustekinumab (Stelara), the authors noted.

Dr. Dalal said it’s important to study this population because patients with IBD and axSpA take some of the same medications, but it’s not known how each medication acts in patients.

“We don’t have much data to tell us who’s going to respond to treatments from both diseases simultaneously,” he said.
 

Conclusions called ‘reassuring’

Jean Liew, MD, a spondyloarthritis specialist at Boston University, who was not part of the study, noted that the team reported univariate associations of clinical factors with achievement of clinical axSpA remission, but no multivariable analyses with adjustment for potential confounders.

She said the finding of half the patients achieving clinical remission is “reassuring, as anecdotally we may find that patients with IBD-associated spondyloarthritis tend to have more difficult-to-treat symptoms as well as more limited treatment options. For example, they cannot use [interleukin]-17 inhibitors.”

She noted the study is small and descriptive and further analyses are limited by the small number of patients.

“I think if a study of the same type could be performed at a larger scale with larger numbers, it could generate more data on which type of patient with IBD-associated spondyloarthritis is more likely to have a good response after starting a TNF inhibitor,” she said. “Of course, the other question is how long those patients would have good disease control while on the TNF inhibitor. What is the persistence of the medication? This study doesn’t ask or answer that question.”

Dr. Dalal added that in future research it will be important to look at response to medications beyond TNFis, especially Janus kinase inhibitors.

That will help show “whether there is a treatment algorithm that can be tailored to this population in terms of what agents to choose first,” he said. “I think we need multicenter studies to do this.”

Dr. Dalal has received grant funding from Pfizer and Janssen and has served as a consultant for Centaur Labs and Janssen. Dr. Liew has no relevant financial relationships.

CLEVELAND – About half (52%) of patients living with both axial spondyloarthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) reached clinical remission of axSpA at 12 months after starting a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), researchers have found.

The disease course for axSpA among patients with IBD who start anti-TNF agents is not well understood.

Rahul S. Dalal, MD, an advanced fellow in IBD with the division of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues studied whether certain clinical factors were associated with remission of axSpA after patients with axSpA, who also had Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC), started anti-TNF therapy.
 

Short IBD duration, adalimumab linked with higher remission odds

They found that those who had IBD for less than 5 years and those taking the TNFi adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars), as opposed to another TNFi, had a higher likelihood of reaching axSpA remission at 1 year. The odds ratios calculated for those factors were statistically significant.

Dr. Dalal said that most of the patients in the study (70%) were prescribed adalimumab, and because the study didn’t compare TNFis head to head, it’s hard to say whether adalimumab should be the preferred treatment for these patients.

“But it’s an interesting question that should be addressed in a bigger study,” he said.

Other TNFis included infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) in 27%, golimumab (Simponi) in 2%, and certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in 1%.

He presented the results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Study details

Included in the retrospective cohort study were 82 adults with IBD and either ankylosing spondylitis or sacroiliitis who started anti-TNF agents approved for IBD between January 2012 and October 2021 at a large academic center.

Clinical remission of axSpA was the primary outcome, defined as the absence or adequate control of pain and/or stiffness related to axSpA as documented in the rheumatology note 1 year (+/– 2 months) after starting anti-TNF agents.

The secondary outcome was clinical remission of IBD, defined as 2 or less on the simple clinical colitis activity index, a score of less than 5 on the Harvey-Bradshaw Index, or provider assessment with no use of oral or intravenous glucocorticoids for 30 days. Dr. Dalal said 74% in the study reached that endpoint in the study period.

“Some patients had good response to anti-TNF treatments for their IBD but not necessarily for their spondyloarthritis,” he explained.

There were insufficient observations to calculate odds ratios for the variables, including Hispanic ethnicity, endoscopic inflammation, and prior history of using vedolizumab (Entyvio), secukinumab (Cosentyx), and ustekinumab (Stelara), the authors noted.

Dr. Dalal said it’s important to study this population because patients with IBD and axSpA take some of the same medications, but it’s not known how each medication acts in patients.

“We don’t have much data to tell us who’s going to respond to treatments from both diseases simultaneously,” he said.
 

Conclusions called ‘reassuring’

Jean Liew, MD, a spondyloarthritis specialist at Boston University, who was not part of the study, noted that the team reported univariate associations of clinical factors with achievement of clinical axSpA remission, but no multivariable analyses with adjustment for potential confounders.

She said the finding of half the patients achieving clinical remission is “reassuring, as anecdotally we may find that patients with IBD-associated spondyloarthritis tend to have more difficult-to-treat symptoms as well as more limited treatment options. For example, they cannot use [interleukin]-17 inhibitors.”

She noted the study is small and descriptive and further analyses are limited by the small number of patients.

“I think if a study of the same type could be performed at a larger scale with larger numbers, it could generate more data on which type of patient with IBD-associated spondyloarthritis is more likely to have a good response after starting a TNF inhibitor,” she said. “Of course, the other question is how long those patients would have good disease control while on the TNF inhibitor. What is the persistence of the medication? This study doesn’t ask or answer that question.”

Dr. Dalal added that in future research it will be important to look at response to medications beyond TNFis, especially Janus kinase inhibitors.

That will help show “whether there is a treatment algorithm that can be tailored to this population in terms of what agents to choose first,” he said. “I think we need multicenter studies to do this.”

Dr. Dalal has received grant funding from Pfizer and Janssen and has served as a consultant for Centaur Labs and Janssen. Dr. Liew has no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar adalimumab-aaty (Yuflyma) in a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation, the manufacturer, Celltrion USA, announced today. It is the ninth biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira) to be approved in the United States.
 

Yuflyma is approved for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. It is also approved for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis for patients aged 2 years or older, as well as for Crohn’s disease in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The formulation was approved on the basis of a comprehensive data package of analytic, preclinical, and clinical studies, according to Celltrion USA, “demonstrating that Yuflyma is comparable to the reference product Humira in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity up to 24 weeks and 1 year following treatment.”

The company conducted a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial that compared switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma with continuing either reference adalimumab or Yuflyma for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In that trial, the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Yuflyma and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma.

“Currently, more than 80% of patients treated with Humira in the United States rely on a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation of this medication. The availability of a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation adalimumab biosimilar provides an important treatment option for patients with inflammatory diseases who benefit from this effective therapy,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in the press release.

The citrate-free formulation is thought to lead to less pain on injection.

Yuflyma will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration options.

Celltrion USA plans to market the drug in the United States in July 2023. Following the initial launch of 40 mg/0.4 mL, the company plans to launch dose forms of 80 mg/0.8 mL and 20 mg/0.2 mL.

Celltrion USA is also seeking an interchangeability designation from the FDA following the completion of an interchangeability trial of 366 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. The interchangeability designation would mean that patients successfully switched from Humira to Yuflyma multiple times in the trial. The interchangeability designation would allow pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Yuflyma. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

If interchangeability is approved for Yuflyma, which the company tentatively expects in the fourth quarter of 2024, it would be just the third interchangeable biosimilar approved by the FDA overall and the second adalimumab biosimilar to be designated as such, after adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo) in October 2021.

Yuflyma was approved in Canada in December 2021 for 10 indications: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, adult ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, plaque psoriasis, adult uveitis, and pediatric uveitis.

In February 2022, the European Commission granted marketing authorization for Yuflyma across those 10 indications, as well as for nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, pediatric plaque psoriasis, and pediatric Crohn’s disease.

In April 2022, Celltrion USA signed a licensing agreement with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira. Under that agreement, Celltrion will pay royalties to AbbVie on sales of their individual biosimilars, and AbbVie agreed to drop all patent litigation.

The full prescribing information for Yuflyma is available here.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar adalimumab-aaty (Yuflyma) in a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation, the manufacturer, Celltrion USA, announced today. It is the ninth biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira) to be approved in the United States.
 

Yuflyma is approved for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. It is also approved for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis for patients aged 2 years or older, as well as for Crohn’s disease in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The formulation was approved on the basis of a comprehensive data package of analytic, preclinical, and clinical studies, according to Celltrion USA, “demonstrating that Yuflyma is comparable to the reference product Humira in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity up to 24 weeks and 1 year following treatment.”

The company conducted a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial that compared switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma with continuing either reference adalimumab or Yuflyma for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In that trial, the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Yuflyma and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma.

“Currently, more than 80% of patients treated with Humira in the United States rely on a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation of this medication. The availability of a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation adalimumab biosimilar provides an important treatment option for patients with inflammatory diseases who benefit from this effective therapy,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in the press release.

The citrate-free formulation is thought to lead to less pain on injection.

Yuflyma will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration options.

Celltrion USA plans to market the drug in the United States in July 2023. Following the initial launch of 40 mg/0.4 mL, the company plans to launch dose forms of 80 mg/0.8 mL and 20 mg/0.2 mL.

Celltrion USA is also seeking an interchangeability designation from the FDA following the completion of an interchangeability trial of 366 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. The interchangeability designation would mean that patients successfully switched from Humira to Yuflyma multiple times in the trial. The interchangeability designation would allow pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Yuflyma. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

If interchangeability is approved for Yuflyma, which the company tentatively expects in the fourth quarter of 2024, it would be just the third interchangeable biosimilar approved by the FDA overall and the second adalimumab biosimilar to be designated as such, after adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo) in October 2021.

Yuflyma was approved in Canada in December 2021 for 10 indications: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, adult ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, plaque psoriasis, adult uveitis, and pediatric uveitis.

In February 2022, the European Commission granted marketing authorization for Yuflyma across those 10 indications, as well as for nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, pediatric plaque psoriasis, and pediatric Crohn’s disease.

In April 2022, Celltrion USA signed a licensing agreement with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira. Under that agreement, Celltrion will pay royalties to AbbVie on sales of their individual biosimilars, and AbbVie agreed to drop all patent litigation.

The full prescribing information for Yuflyma is available here.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biosimilar adalimumab-aaty (Yuflyma) in a citrate-free, high-concentration formulation, the manufacturer, Celltrion USA, announced today. It is the ninth biosimilar of adalimumab (Humira) to be approved in the United States.
 

Yuflyma is approved for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. It is also approved for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis for patients aged 2 years or older, as well as for Crohn’s disease in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The formulation was approved on the basis of a comprehensive data package of analytic, preclinical, and clinical studies, according to Celltrion USA, “demonstrating that Yuflyma is comparable to the reference product Humira in terms of efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity up to 24 weeks and 1 year following treatment.”

The company conducted a double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial that compared switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma with continuing either reference adalimumab or Yuflyma for patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. In that trial, the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of Yuflyma and reference adalimumab were comparable after 1 year of treatment, including after switching from reference adalimumab to Yuflyma.

“Currently, more than 80% of patients treated with Humira in the United States rely on a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation of this medication. The availability of a high-concentration and citrate-free formulation adalimumab biosimilar provides an important treatment option for patients with inflammatory diseases who benefit from this effective therapy,” said Jonathan Kay, MD, of the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, in the press release.

The citrate-free formulation is thought to lead to less pain on injection.

Yuflyma will be available in prefilled syringe and autoinjector administration options.

Celltrion USA plans to market the drug in the United States in July 2023. Following the initial launch of 40 mg/0.4 mL, the company plans to launch dose forms of 80 mg/0.8 mL and 20 mg/0.2 mL.

Celltrion USA is also seeking an interchangeability designation from the FDA following the completion of an interchangeability trial of 366 patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. The interchangeability designation would mean that patients successfully switched from Humira to Yuflyma multiple times in the trial. The interchangeability designation would allow pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Yuflyma. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

If interchangeability is approved for Yuflyma, which the company tentatively expects in the fourth quarter of 2024, it would be just the third interchangeable biosimilar approved by the FDA overall and the second adalimumab biosimilar to be designated as such, after adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo) in October 2021.

Yuflyma was approved in Canada in December 2021 for 10 indications: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, adult Crohn’s disease, adult ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, plaque psoriasis, adult uveitis, and pediatric uveitis.

In February 2022, the European Commission granted marketing authorization for Yuflyma across those 10 indications, as well as for nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis, pediatric plaque psoriasis, and pediatric Crohn’s disease.

In April 2022, Celltrion USA signed a licensing agreement with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira. Under that agreement, Celltrion will pay royalties to AbbVie on sales of their individual biosimilars, and AbbVie agreed to drop all patent litigation.

The full prescribing information for Yuflyma is available here.

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

CLEVELAND – Documenting the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) among Black Americans has been difficult because of little published data, but new research suggests that when Black Americans do have the disease, it seems to be more severe.

Iman Abutineh, MD, of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, discussed her team’s work at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

A total of 244 patients with axSpA were identified, including 168 (69%) males, 78 (32%) Black patients, and 143 (59%) White patients.

Average age of onset for patients overall was 27.7 years, and age at diagnosis was 36.1 years with a 7-year delay in diagnosis. Sixty-six (27%) patients had nonradiographic axSpA, 83% were on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and 38% were prescribed glucocorticoids.

The researchers found several differences by race.

White patients were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (77% vs. 59%; P = .010). White patients also had higher prevalence of psoriasis, coronary artery disease, and family history of SpA. White females had a higher prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, depression, and lower grades of sacroiliitis.
 

Black patients had more hip involvement

A higher percentage of Black patients had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hip involvement. In comparing hip involvement, the researchers found that 39 (39%) White males had hip involvement as did 9 (21%) White females. In comparison, 22 (45%) Black men in the study and 14 (54%) Black women showed hip involvement (P = .035).

After adjustment for age, sex, HLA-B27, and insurance status, Black patients had higher grades of sacroiliitis with an odds ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.44). Black patients had a numerically longer delay in diagnosis, compared with Whites (7.93 vs. 6.64 years), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .454), the researchers wrote.
 

Study addresses racial disparities

“Traditionally we think of axial spondyloarthritis largely in Caucasian males who are HLA-B27 positive,” Dr. Abutineh said, “and we found that there is still a significant portion of patients who don’t meet the criteria that do have disease that is very significant.”

Although actual prevalence was not clear from this study, Dr. Abutineh said their data suggest a 3-to-1 ratio of White-to-Black patients with spondyloarthritis, “but of the Black patients who are diagnosed, their disease is almost always more severe. That points to why it’s important to have a high index of suspicion for this disease in that patient population because if you miss it, it could be detrimental to the patients.”

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not part of the study, said in an interview, “It is an excellent and timely study addressing the racial disparities and inequities surrounding axSpA diagnosis. It highlights the delay in diagnosis and increased burden of disease among Black Americans.”

She said the study may prompt a further look into barriers to care for Black Americans and their beliefs regarding seeking health care for their pain.
 

Higher rates of nonradiographic axSpA among Black patients

The rate of nonradiographic axSpA among Black Americans was more than twice that of their White counterparts, which, Dr. Alexander noted, could make it more difficult to diagnose axSpA in that population.

The odds ratio for Black patients having nonradiographic axSpA, compared with Whites, was 2.265 (95% CI, 1.082-4.999; P = .035), after adjustment for age, sex, and HLA-B27 status.

Adult patients with axSpA were identified from rheumatology clinics at four major hospital systems and one private clinic in Shelby County, Tenn., between 2011 and 2021. Patients met modified New York (mNY) or Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria as assessed by reviewers.

The authors and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

CLEVELAND – Documenting the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) among Black Americans has been difficult because of little published data, but new research suggests that when Black Americans do have the disease, it seems to be more severe.

Iman Abutineh, MD, of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, discussed her team’s work at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

A total of 244 patients with axSpA were identified, including 168 (69%) males, 78 (32%) Black patients, and 143 (59%) White patients.

Average age of onset for patients overall was 27.7 years, and age at diagnosis was 36.1 years with a 7-year delay in diagnosis. Sixty-six (27%) patients had nonradiographic axSpA, 83% were on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and 38% were prescribed glucocorticoids.

The researchers found several differences by race.

White patients were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (77% vs. 59%; P = .010). White patients also had higher prevalence of psoriasis, coronary artery disease, and family history of SpA. White females had a higher prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, depression, and lower grades of sacroiliitis.
 

Black patients had more hip involvement

A higher percentage of Black patients had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hip involvement. In comparing hip involvement, the researchers found that 39 (39%) White males had hip involvement as did 9 (21%) White females. In comparison, 22 (45%) Black men in the study and 14 (54%) Black women showed hip involvement (P = .035).

After adjustment for age, sex, HLA-B27, and insurance status, Black patients had higher grades of sacroiliitis with an odds ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.44). Black patients had a numerically longer delay in diagnosis, compared with Whites (7.93 vs. 6.64 years), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .454), the researchers wrote.
 

Study addresses racial disparities

“Traditionally we think of axial spondyloarthritis largely in Caucasian males who are HLA-B27 positive,” Dr. Abutineh said, “and we found that there is still a significant portion of patients who don’t meet the criteria that do have disease that is very significant.”

Although actual prevalence was not clear from this study, Dr. Abutineh said their data suggest a 3-to-1 ratio of White-to-Black patients with spondyloarthritis, “but of the Black patients who are diagnosed, their disease is almost always more severe. That points to why it’s important to have a high index of suspicion for this disease in that patient population because if you miss it, it could be detrimental to the patients.”

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not part of the study, said in an interview, “It is an excellent and timely study addressing the racial disparities and inequities surrounding axSpA diagnosis. It highlights the delay in diagnosis and increased burden of disease among Black Americans.”

She said the study may prompt a further look into barriers to care for Black Americans and their beliefs regarding seeking health care for their pain.
 

Higher rates of nonradiographic axSpA among Black patients

The rate of nonradiographic axSpA among Black Americans was more than twice that of their White counterparts, which, Dr. Alexander noted, could make it more difficult to diagnose axSpA in that population.

The odds ratio for Black patients having nonradiographic axSpA, compared with Whites, was 2.265 (95% CI, 1.082-4.999; P = .035), after adjustment for age, sex, and HLA-B27 status.

Adult patients with axSpA were identified from rheumatology clinics at four major hospital systems and one private clinic in Shelby County, Tenn., between 2011 and 2021. Patients met modified New York (mNY) or Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria as assessed by reviewers.

The authors and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

CLEVELAND – Documenting the prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) among Black Americans has been difficult because of little published data, but new research suggests that when Black Americans do have the disease, it seems to be more severe.

Iman Abutineh, MD, of the University of Tennessee, Memphis, discussed her team’s work at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

A total of 244 patients with axSpA were identified, including 168 (69%) males, 78 (32%) Black patients, and 143 (59%) White patients.

Average age of onset for patients overall was 27.7 years, and age at diagnosis was 36.1 years with a 7-year delay in diagnosis. Sixty-six (27%) patients had nonradiographic axSpA, 83% were on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and 38% were prescribed glucocorticoids.

The researchers found several differences by race.

White patients were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (77% vs. 59%; P = .010). White patients also had higher prevalence of psoriasis, coronary artery disease, and family history of SpA. White females had a higher prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease, fibromyalgia, depression, and lower grades of sacroiliitis.
 

Black patients had more hip involvement

A higher percentage of Black patients had elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and hip involvement. In comparing hip involvement, the researchers found that 39 (39%) White males had hip involvement as did 9 (21%) White females. In comparison, 22 (45%) Black men in the study and 14 (54%) Black women showed hip involvement (P = .035).

After adjustment for age, sex, HLA-B27, and insurance status, Black patients had higher grades of sacroiliitis with an odds ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence interval, 1.23-4.44). Black patients had a numerically longer delay in diagnosis, compared with Whites (7.93 vs. 6.64 years), but this did not achieve statistical significance (P = .454), the researchers wrote.
 

Study addresses racial disparities

“Traditionally we think of axial spondyloarthritis largely in Caucasian males who are HLA-B27 positive,” Dr. Abutineh said, “and we found that there is still a significant portion of patients who don’t meet the criteria that do have disease that is very significant.”

Although actual prevalence was not clear from this study, Dr. Abutineh said their data suggest a 3-to-1 ratio of White-to-Black patients with spondyloarthritis, “but of the Black patients who are diagnosed, their disease is almost always more severe. That points to why it’s important to have a high index of suspicion for this disease in that patient population because if you miss it, it could be detrimental to the patients.”

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who was not part of the study, said in an interview, “It is an excellent and timely study addressing the racial disparities and inequities surrounding axSpA diagnosis. It highlights the delay in diagnosis and increased burden of disease among Black Americans.”

She said the study may prompt a further look into barriers to care for Black Americans and their beliefs regarding seeking health care for their pain.
 

Higher rates of nonradiographic axSpA among Black patients

The rate of nonradiographic axSpA among Black Americans was more than twice that of their White counterparts, which, Dr. Alexander noted, could make it more difficult to diagnose axSpA in that population.

The odds ratio for Black patients having nonradiographic axSpA, compared with Whites, was 2.265 (95% CI, 1.082-4.999; P = .035), after adjustment for age, sex, and HLA-B27 status.

Adult patients with axSpA were identified from rheumatology clinics at four major hospital systems and one private clinic in Shelby County, Tenn., between 2011 and 2021. Patients met modified New York (mNY) or Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria as assessed by reviewers.

The authors and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

Are there clinically significant differences between axial spondyloarthritis with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis with axial symptoms? Does it matter?

It all depends on whom you ask, but right now the evidence seems to be tipping in favor of the “splitters” who cite evidence supporting their contention that axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA)/ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial symptoms are distinct clinical entities that require more precise diagnosis and treatment.

“Lumpers,” in contrast, argue that they are different points on the same clinical spectrum.

The debate is not just of academic interest, but has real consequences for patients, say specialists on both sides of the aisle.
 

Overlapping features, different presentations

“Axial SpA and axPsA have overlapping features but also meaningful differences in genetics, clinical presentation, imaging, and immunophenotype. Efforts are underway to develop classification criteria for axPsA to aid research efforts as well as clinical diagnosis and management,” Philip J. Mease, MD, director of rheumatology research at Swedish Medical Center/Providence–St. Joseph Health in Seattle, and colleagues contend.

In an editorial published in the International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Mease and colleagues noted that, although HLA-B*27 is a genetic risk factor for both axPsA and axSpA, some HLA-B alleles are significantly associated with axPsA, whereas other alleles are associated with axSpA.

In addition, while genes in the interleukin-23 and IL-17 pathway are associated with increased risk for axSpA, genes in the IL-13 pathway have been identified as risk markers for axPsA, they noted.
 

Two cohorts better than one?

Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Schroeder Arthritis Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, and colleagues have a unique perspective on the similarities and differences between the disease entities.

Her group’s research uses data on cohorts of patients treated in two separate clinics at Toronto Western Hospital: one for patients with PsA, and one for patients with axial spondyloarthritis, including those with ankylosing spondylitis, nonradiographic axSpA, and spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease.

“Our work has shown that there are differences, and one of the reasons that it’s now important is that the anti–IL-23 medications, both the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab [Stelara] and the IL-23 inhibitor guselkumab [Tremfya] work for psoriatic arthritis, whereas IL-23 did not work in ankylosing spondylitis, so that provided further impetus to look into the distinction between the two groups,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

Dr. Gladman and colleagues published a study in Rheumatology in which they compared clinical presentations and features of patients with AS with or without psoriasis with patients with axPsA.

They found that patients with AS with or without psoriasis tended to be younger, had a higher proportion of males to females, and were more likely to be positive for HLA-B*27. Patients with AS also had more back pain at presentation, worse axial disease activity scores, worse global assessments by physicians, and higher grades of sacroiliitis, and they were more likely to be taking biologic agents.

“What that showed, right off the top, that whether we’re looking at the total group or we’re looking specifically at those patients who have psoriasis or don’t have psoriasis, they are different from those with psoriatic arthritis with axial disease,” she said.

They concluded that “axPsA seems to be a distinct entity.”
 

Two clinics, same presentation

Because the aforementioned study included all patients with PsA with or without peripheral disease, the investigators decided to filter out some of the background noise and conduct a second study in which they compared patients who presented to the two clinics with the same presentation, either with spinal disease and psoriasis to the spondylitis clinic, or with psoriasis and isolated axial disease to the PsA clinic.

The results, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, showed that just 2.03% of patients with PsA had isolated axial disease, and an additional 29.38% had axial and peripheral disease.

In this study, “you can see that even in that group there are distinct differences. The patients that are labeled psoriatic spondylitis are different from those that are labeled ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis,” Dr. Gladman said.

Isolated axial disease in patients with PsA was associated with HLA-B*27 positivity and lower Health Assessment Questionnaire scores. In addition, patients who were HLA-B*27 positive also had a nearly eightfold higher risk for developing peripheral disease over time.

Patients with isolated axial PsA were significantly more likely to be diagnosed at an older age (mean, 37.44 vs. 29.65 years), had higher Psoriasis Area Severity Index scores and a higher likelihood of having psoriatic nail lesions than patients with AS with isolated axial disease and psoriasis.

In contrast, patients with isolated axSpA with psoriasis were more likely to have inflammatory back pain, spinal pain, joint pain/swelling, and areas of localized tenderness, and they had greater severity of morning stiffness.

Dr. Gladman noted that, although AS and PsA are associated with the same gene that encodes for the IL-23 receptor, each condition is associated with a different single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Same disease, different flavors?

But as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races, and some specialists in rheumatology say that axSpA amd axPsA are just two sides of the same coin.

Pramod Rathod

“There are always different schools of thought. I believe that they are not different diseases, but a spectrum of diseases,” said Shailendra Singh, MD, a rheumatologist at Unity Health Medical Center in Searcy, Ark., and past president of the Arkansas Rheumatology Association.

In an interview, Dr. Singh said that the spectrum ranges from diseases with primarily axial involvement, such as AS, to those with primarily peripheral involvement, such as reactive arthritis.

He pointed out that these conditions have overlapping symptoms, including enthesitis, dactylitis, and uveitis, and inflammatory arthritis.

Daniel Wendling, MD, PhD, from the Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Besançon (France), Université de Franche-Comté, and colleagues agreed.

“The criteria currently available for both SpA [ASAS (Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society) criteria] and PsA [CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria] are classification criteria, not diagnostic criteria. They are not very stringent and are not exclusive. Thus, the same patient can easily be classified simultaneously in both entities, making the distinction between axSpA with psoriasis and axPsA theoretical,” they wrote in an editorial published in Joint Bone Spine.

They cited as an example of the allegedly fuzzy criteria a prospective study conducted by the investigators in Bath, England, in which modified New York criteria for AS were met by 24% of patients with AS, and CASPAR criteria for PsA were met by an equal number of patients with AS.
 

Therapeutic implications

Dr. Wendling and colleagues acknowledge the differences cited in studies by Dr. Gladman, Dr. Mease, and others between patients with axPsA and those with axSpA, but argue that the differences are not that great and not so clear.

“It should also be emphasized that, although some differences between axPsA and axSpA reach statistical significance, they are mostly at the margin, with low odd ratios,” they wrote.

“It is also important to consider the variability in the definition of axPsA, sometimes simply ‘physician reported’ and elsewhere based on the modified New York radiographic criteria; the latter are only present late in the course of the disease, and this may induce bias,” they continued.

Dr. Singh agreed that, as noted by Dr. Gladman, some patients will respond to anti–IL-17, anti–IL-23, and anti–IL-12/23 agents, whereas others will have better responses with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, and still others, such as those with peripheral involvement in the hands and feet may fare better with nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate.
 

Answers to come?

Dr. Gladman noted that the information available to date about the efficacy of IL-23 inhibition in axPsA is based on a post hoc analysis of the PSUMMIT 1 and 2 controlled trials in PsA, and is not definitive.

The randomized, controlled STAR trial, currently recruiting patients, is designed to see whether guselkumab can reduce axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active axPsA.

“What I say is, there is a rationale for [anti–IL-23] to work in psoriatic arthritis, and not work in ankylosing spondylitis,” she said.

In contrast, IL-17 inhibitors, anti-TNF agents, and Janus kinase inhibitors show efficacy against both axPsA and AS. Rituximab is ineffective against PsA, but has shown efficacy against AS, especially in patients with neurologic complications from anti-TNF agents.

“There may be other medications that would work more specifically in axial psoriatic arthritis that don’t work in ankylosing spondylitis, but at least recognizing that there may be some differences, and that therefore a correct diagnosis should be obtained, might be important,” she said.

Ideally, the picture will become clearer with results from the ongoing Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, a joint project of ASAS and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. The multinational, cross-sectional study is designed “to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research.”

Stay tuned.

Dr. Gladman’s research is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. Dr. Singh disclosed research support from various companies. Funding sources and conflict of interest disclosures from other works cited are contained in their respective references.

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – The use of NSAIDs may mask the true level of inflammation of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ), as seen on MRI, among people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to results of the DyNAMISM study.

“We’ve found that in about one in four patients, NSAIDs make a difference to the scan results,” Gareth T. Jones, PhD, said at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

A total of 23% of patients whose MRI results were positive for sacroiliitis when no NSAIDs had been used for a couple of weeks received negative MRI results 6 weeks after the NSAIDs were reinstated.

“This is important in terms of diagnosis, in terms of disease classification, and may be important in terms of future treatment decisions,” added Dr. Jones, professor of epidemiology at the Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health at the University of Aberdeen, (Scotland).

“Our recommendation from these results is that if a patient is willing to attempt to wash out [NSAIDs] prior to an MRI, we would recommend that they do so,” Dr. Jones said.
 

NSAIDs and AxSpA inflammation

“NSAIDs are often used as the first-line treatment for axial spondyloarthritis due to their ability to effectively reduce pain and stiffness associated with the condition,” Denis Poddubnyy, MD, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

“However, there is still a question as to whether NSAIDs have a true anti-inflammatory effect on the axial inflammation, as detected by MRI,” added Dr. Poddubnyy, head of rheumatology at Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany.

With an absence of randomized, controlled trials, it remains “uncertain how much of the observed reduction in inflammation is attributable to the natural course of the disease and spontaneous resolution of inflammation rather than the effect of NSAIDs,” Dr. Poddubnyy said.
 

The DyNAMISM Study

“Sacroiliitis is a painful inflammatory condition. This is investigated looking for the evidence of inflammation on MRI, but many patients are taking anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Jones said at the meeting.

“So perhaps patients are taking drugs [that are] hiding the very thing that we’re looking for,” he added. Hence, the DyNAMISM study (Do Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Mask Inflammation in Spondyloarthritis on MRI) was conceived.

The researchers recruited 311 adults with suspected or established axSpA who were taking daily NSAIDs such as ibuprofen or diclofenac across 34 centers in England and Scotland. Patients taking other anti-inflammatory medications that could not be stopped were excluded, as were patients who were currently taking or had recently taken tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

The study used a standardized MRI protocol. Two independent readers experienced in scoring SIJ scans were employed; a third was used when the two disagreed. The primary outcome was meeting the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society criteria for a positive result on MRI.

The average age of the study subjects was 42 years, 62% were men, and 87% were White. The median duration of symptoms was 9 years, and the median time since diagnosis was 1 year.

The study design required that patients stop NSAID use over a period of 1-2 weeks before undergoing an MRI scan, which 286 did. Of these, 146 received MRI results that were positive for SIJ inflammation; those patients continued in the study. The 140 patients with negative scans were excluded. Patients could then resume taking NSAIDs before being scanned again around 6 weeks later. In all, 129 patients underwent both MRI scans.
 

How much might fluctuating inflammation matter?

‘It’s a shame you didn’t scan the negative people, because the natural history is a fluctuating inflammation,” Fraser Birrell, MBChB, PhD, of Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, pointed out in discussion.

“Nonsteroidals are modestly effective and probably made no difference,” he argued. “I would have expected a certain proportion of the negatives are positive.”

The study had a pragmatic design, Dr. Jones countered. “We had enormous debate before the study; it would have been nice to do a sort of a randomized, crossover design, but it would have resulted in a lot of inefficiency.”

Regarding the duration of the NSAID washout period, Dr. Jones noted that they saw little difference between shorter or longer washout periods and that the data showed that “a 2-week washout is a reasonable target.”

Performing the second scan 6 weeks after NSAIDs were reinstated “exceeds the period where clinical benefits should be expected. It may be that if we’d waited longer, the proportion would have gone up. So, we would argue that actually, if anything, that 23% may be an underestimate of the real effect.”

Although some patients may have declined to participate in the study because they did not want to stop taking NSAIDs, Dr. Jones noted that a good proportion did stop taking them, and so the study shows that patients can tolerate washout. Around 45% of patients reported experiencing disease flares during this time, but this did not have any significant effect on validated disease activity or pain measures, Dr. Jones reported.

So, if patients are willing to stop NSAIDs before a scan, “they should be counseled that they may experience a small increase in disease activity and spinal pain, but also to be counseled that the majority of patients can tolerate this,” Dr. Jones suggested.

Trials are needed, Dr. Poddubnyy said: “Future randomized, controlled studies are needed to conclusively determine the efficacy of NSAIDs in reducing inflammation in the axial skeleton of axSpA patients.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added: “It would also be valuable to assess in a randomized setting whether the use of NSAIDs impacts the diagnostic performance of MRI, which takes into account not only inflammatory but also structural changes, which are not influenced by NSAIDs.”

The DyNAMISM study was funded by Arthritis Research UK and was run by the University of Aberdeen in conjunction with NHS Grampian, Scotland. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Poddubnyy disclosed ties with AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Moonlake, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors may be associated with a higher risk for cancer relative to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to a meta-analysis reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

Looking at all phase 2, 3, and 4 trials and long-term extension studies across the indications of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and atopic dermatitis, the risk ratio for any cancer developing was 1.63 when compared with anti-TNF therapy (95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.09).

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

By comparison, JAK inhibitor use was not significantly associated with any greater risk for cancer than methotrexate (RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.94) or placebo (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.75-1.80).

“Our data suggests that rather than JAK inhibitors necessarily being harmful, it could be more a case of TNF inhibitors being protective,” said Christopher Stovin, MBChB, a specialist registrar in rheumatology at the Princess Royal University Hospital, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust, London.

“We should stress that these are rare events in our study, roughly around 1 in every 100 patient-years of exposure,” Dr. Stovin said.

“Despite having over 80,000 years of patient exposure, the median follow-up duration for JAK inhibitors was still only 118 weeks, which for cancers [that] obviously have long latency periods is still a relatively small duration of time,” the researcher added.

“People worry about the drugs. But there is a possibility that [a] disturbed immune system plays a role per se in development of cancers,” consultant rheumatologist Anurag Bharadwaj, MD, DM, said in an interview.

“Although there are studies which attribute increased risk of cancer to different DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] and biologics like TNF, but on other hand, it’s maybe that we are giving these drugs to patients who have got more serious immunological disease,” suggested Bharadwaj, who serves as the clinical lead for rheumatology at Basildon (England) Hospital, Mid & South Essex Foundation Trust.

“So, a possibility may be that the more severe or the more active the immunological inflammatory disease, the higher the chance of cancer, and these are the patients who go for the stronger medications,” Dr. Bharadwaj said.

There is an “immunological window of opportunity” when treating these inflammatory diseases, said Dr. Bharadwaj, noting that the first few months of treatment are vital. “For all immunological diseases, the more quickly you bring the immunological abnormality down, the chances of long-term complications go down, including [possibly that the] chances of cancer go down, chances of cardiovascular disease go down, and chances of lung disease go down. Hit it early, hit it hard.”

Concern over a possible higher risk for cancer with JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors was raised following the release of data from the ORAL Surveillance trial, a postmarketing trial of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) that had been mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.

“This was a study looking at the coprimary endpoints of malignancy and major adverse cardiovascular events, and it was enriched with patients over the age of 50, with one additional cardiac risk factor, designed to amplify the detection of these rare events,” Dr. Stovin said.

“There was a signal of an increased risk of malignancy in the tofacitinib group, and this led to the FDA issuing a [boxed warning for all licensed JAK inhibitors] at that time,” he added.

Dr. Stovin and colleagues aimed to determine what, if any, cancer risk was associated with all available JAK inhibitors relative to placebo, TNF inhibitors, and methotrexate.

In all, data from 62 randomized controlled trials and 14 long-term extension studies were included in the meta-analysis, accounting for 82,366 patient years of follow-up. The JAK inhibitors analyzed included tofacitinib, baricitinib (Olumiant), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and peficitinib (Smyraf). (Filgotinib and peficitinib have not been approved by the FDA.)

The researchers performed sensitivity analyses that excluded cancers detected within the first 6 months of treatment, the use of higher than licensed JAK inhibitor doses, and patients with non-rheumatoid arthritis diagnoses, but the results remained largely unchanged, Dr. Stovin reported.  

“Perhaps not surprisingly, when we removed ORAL Surveillance” from the analysis comparing JAK inhibitors and TNF inhibitors, “we lost statistical significance,” he said.

“Longitudinal observational data is needed but currently remains limited,” Dr. Stovin concluded.

Dr. Stovin and Dr. Bharadwaj reported no relevant financial relationships. The meta-analysis was independently supported. Dr. Bharadwaj was not involved in the study and provided comment ahead of the presentation.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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

Rheumatologist Marcus Snow, MD, is comfortable with prescribing biosimilars as a first-line, first-time biologic, and discussing them with patients.

“If a biosimilar is on the market, it has gone through rigorous study proving its effectiveness and equivalence to a bio-originator,” said Dr. Snow, a rheumatologist with the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care.

The formulary makes a big difference in the conversation about options, he said. “The formularies dictate what we can prescribe. It may not be appropriate, but it is reality. The cost of biologics for a patient without insurance coverage makes it impossible to afford.”

He will often tell patients that he’ll fight any changes or formulary restrictions he does not agree with. “However, when I see patients in follow-up, even if there is no known change on the horizon, I may bring up biosimilars when we have a moment to chat about them to familiarize them with what may happen in the future.”

The need for patient education on biosimilars presents a barrier to realizing their potential to save money and expand choice, noted Cardinal Health in its 2023 biosimilars report. Of 103 rheumatologists who responded to a Cardinal Health survey, 85% agreed that patient education was important. But those conversations can take an uncomfortable turn if the patient pushes back against taking a biosimilar owing to cost or safety concerns.

It’s not uncommon for a patient to express some anxiety about biosimilars, especially if they’re doing well on a current treatment plan. Most patients do not want any changes that may lead to worsening disease control, Dr. Snow said.

Kaiser Permanente

Patients and physicians alike often don’t understand the mechanics of biosimilars. “There’s a lot of misinformation about this,” said Sameer Awsare, MD, an associate executive director for The Permanente Medical Group in Campbell, Calif. Patients should know that a biosimilar will be as clinically efficacious as the medicine they’ve been on, with the same safety profiles, said Dr. Awsare, who works with Kaiser Permanente’s pharmacy partners on biosimilars.
 

Insurance often drives the conversation

The global anti-inflammatory biologics market is anticipated to reach $150 billion by 2027, according to a recent CVS report. As of March 2023, the Food and Drug Administration had approved 40 biosimilars to 11 different reference products. There are 28 on the U.S. market and 100 more in development. Projected to save more than $180 billion over the next 5 years, they are anticipated to expand choice and drive competition.

Rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists are frequent prescribers, although their choices for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases are limited to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab [Remicade] originator and adalimumab [Humira] originator) and anti-CD20 agents, such as rituximab (Rituxan) originator.

Benefit design or formulary usually dictates what medicine a patient receives. “Because of significantly higher out-of-pocket cost or formulary positioning, patients may end up with a generic or a biosimilar instead of a brand-name medicine or branded biologic,” said Robert Popovian, PharmD, MS, chief science policy officer of the Global Healthy Living Foundation.

Insurers rarely offer both Remicade and biosimilar infliximab, allowing the doctor to choose, said Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, who prescribes infliximab biosimilars. Most often, the payer will choose the lower-cost biosimilar. “I am fine with the biosimilar, either as a new start or a switch from the reference product.”

However, the patient might feel differently. They can form an attachment to the reference medication if it has prevented severe illness. “They do not want to change, as they feel they are going on a ‘new’ medication that will not work as well,” Dr. Regueiro said.

This is where the education comes in: to reassure patients that a biosimilar will work just as well as the reference product. “For patients who have done well for years on a biologic, more time needs to be spent reassuring them and answering questions,” compared with a patient just starting on a biosimilar, he advised.

But not all physicians are quick to prescribe biosimilars.

Julie Miller Photography

Especially with psoriasis, which has so many strong options for reference drugs, a switch may be hard to justify, said dermatologist Stephanie K. Fabbro, MD, assistant professor at Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown. “If I have a preference, I would rather switch a patient to a drug from a different class without a biosimilar option to reduce the possibility of pushback.”

Dr. Fabbro, part of the core faculty in the Riverside Methodist Hospital Dermatology Residency Program in Columbus, will share data from clinical trials and postmarket surveillance with patients to support her decision.
 

Conversations about cost

Patients may also push back if they don’t save money when switching to a biosimilar. “This dilemma raises the question of who is profiting when a biosimilar is dispensed,” Dr. Popovian said. Insurers and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that take additional concessions from biopharmaceutical manufacturers in the form of rebates and fees will often pocket this money as profit instead of passing savings back to the patient to help reduce their out-of-pocket requirement, he added.

If an originator biologic and a biosimilar are available, “as a pharmacist, I will choose the medicine that will incur the lowest out-of-pocket cost for the patient,” Dr. Popovian said.

Discussing cost – and who dictates which biosimilar is on the formulary – is an important conversation to have with patients, said Vivek Kaul, MD, Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

Providing equivalent clinical efficacy while saving costs is the economic reality of biosimilars, Dr. Kaul said. Third-party payers regularly evaluate how to provide the same quality of care while saving money. Physicians and patients alike “must be mindful that as time goes on, if the science on biosimilars stays robust, if the adoption is more widespread and the cost-saving proposition turns out to be true, more formularies will be attracted to replacing the reference product with the biosimilar counterpart.”

Providers and patients can weigh the options if a formulary suddenly switches to a biosimilar, Dr. Kaul continued. “You can accept the novel product on the formulary or may have to face out-of-pocket expenses as a patient.” If providers and patients have concerns about the biosimilar, they can always appeal if there’s solid scientific evidence that supports reverting back to the reference product.

“If you think the biosimilar is equally efficacious, comes at a lower cost, and is right for the patient, then the providers should tell the patient that,” he added.

Some studies have questioned whether the biosimilars will save money, compared with the reference drug, Dr. Fabbro noted. Medicare, for example, may pay only for a certain percentage of an approved biosimilar, saddling the patient with a monthly copay costing thousands of dollars. “It is unclear whether biosimilar manufacturers will have the same level of patient support programs as the reference drug companies.”

For that reason, physicians should also inform patients about the robust patient assistance and copay assistance programs many reference drug manufacturers offer, she said.

Biosimilars 101: Familiarizing patients

Safety and ease of use are other common concerns about biosimilars. Patients may ask if the application is different, or why it’s advantageous to switch to a biosimilar, Dr. Awsare said.

Sometimes the syringe or injector for a biosimilar might look different from that of the originator drug, he said.

Anecdotally, Dr. Fabbro has heard stories of patients having injection reactions that they did not experience with the reference drug or having a disease flare-up after starting a biosimilar. 

rubberball/Getty Images

As is the case with reference products, in their conversations with patients, clinicians should address the adverse event profile of biosimilars, offering data points from published studies and clinical guidelines that support the use of these products. “There should be an emphasis on patient education around efficacy and any side effects, and how the profile of the reference product compares with a proposed biosimilar,” Dr. Kaul suggested.

When Dr. Snow discusses biosimilars and generics, “I make sure to share this in an understandable way based on the patient’s scientific background, or lack thereof,” he said. If there is enough time, he also discusses how European- and U.S.-sourced biologics are slightly different.

Pharmacists should tell patients to expect the same clinical outcomes from a biosimilar, Dr. Popovian said. However, if they have any reduction in efficacy or potential safety concerns, they should communicate with their physician or pharmacist immediately.

In Dr. Regueiro’s practice, a pharmacist specializing in inflammatory bowel disease often has a one-on-one meeting with patients to educate and answer questions. “Additionally, we provide them the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation web link on biosimilars,” said Dr. Regueiro.
 

A village approach to education

When biosimilars first came out, there were no formal education materials, Dr. Awsare said. Kaiser Permanente decided to create its own educational materials, not just for patients but also to help educate its primary care doctors; the rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists using the biosimilars; the nurses infusing patients; and the pharmacists preparing the biosimilars.

The health system also has a different approach to choosing medication. Instead of having an insurance company or PBM decide what’s in the formulary, clinicians work with the pharmacists at Kaiser to look at clinical evidence and decide which biosimilar to use. Most of its plans also provide lower copays to patients when they use the biosimilar. 

This was the approach for Humira biosimilars, Dr. Awsare said. Eight will be on the market in 2023. “Our rheumatologists, dermatologists, and gastroenterologists looked at the data from Europe, looked at some real-world evidence, and then said: ‘We think this one’s going to be the best one for our patients.’ ”

Having clinicians choose the biosimilar instead of a health plan makes it a lot easier to have conversations with patients, he said. “Once we’ve moved that market share to that particular biosimilar, we give our physicians the time to have those discussions.”

Clinical pharmacists also provide educational support, offering guidance on issues such as side effects, as patients transition to the biosimilar. “We like to use the word ‘transition’ because it’s essentially the same biologic. So, you’re not actually switching,” Dr. Awsare said.

No consensus on interchangeability

Whether the conversation on interchangeability will affect patient conversations with physicians depends on who you ask.

If a biosimilar has an interchangeability designation, it means that the pharmacist can substitute it without the intervention of the clinician who prescribed the reference product. It does not relate to the quality, safety, or effectiveness of biosimilars or interchangeable biosimilar products, Dr. Popovian said.

The United States is the only country that has this designation. Even though it’s not identical to the originator drug, a biosimilar has the same clinical efficacy and safety profile. “So clinically, interchangeability is meaningless,” Dr. Awsare said.

In its report on biosimilars in the autoimmune category, CVS acknowledged that interchangeability was important but would not be a significant factor in driving adoption of biosimilars. However, in a Cardinal Health survey of 72 gastroenterologists, 38% cited the interchangeability of biosimilars as a top concern for adalimumab biosimilars, along with transitioning patients from Humira to a biosimilar (44%).

“Patient education regarding biosimilar safety, efficacy, and interchangeability appears paramount to the acceptance of these products, particularly for patients who are switched from a reference product,” Dr. Kaul noted in the Cardinal Health report.

Wherever supported by data, Dr. Kaul recommends incorporating biosimilar use and interchangeability into best practice guidelines going forward. “That will go a long way in disseminating the latest information on this topic and position this paradigm for increased adoption among providers.”

Some physicians like Dr. Snow aren’t that concerned with interchangeability. This hasn’t affected conversations with patients, he said. Multiple studies demonstrating the lack of antibody formation with multiple switches from different biosimilar drugs has eased his concern about multiple switches causing problems.

“Initially, there was a gap in demonstrating the long-term effect of multiple switches on antibody production and drug effectiveness. That gap has started to close as more data from Europe’s experience with biosimilars becomes available,” Dr. Snow said.
 

Resources for physicians, patients

The federal government has taken steps to advance biosimilars education and adoption. In 2021, President Biden signed the Advancing Education on Biosimilars Act into law, which directs the FDA to develop or improve continuing education programs that address prescribing of biosimilars and biological products.

The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit. The Accreditation Council for Medical Affairs has also created an online 40-hour curriculum for health care professionals called the Board-Certified Biologics and Biosimilars Specialist Program.

Dr. Fabbro recommended patients use the FDA page Biosimilar Basics for Patients to educate themselves on biosimilars. The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars, is another free resource for patients.

“While much has changed, the continued need for multistakeholder education, awareness, and dedicated research remains even more important as we expand into newer therapeutic areas and classes,” wrote the authors of the Cardinal Health report.

Help patients understand biologics and biosimilars by using AGA resources for providers and patients available at gastro.org/biosimilars.

Dr. Regueiro is on advisory boards and consults for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET PharmaSolutions, Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Fabbro is a principal investigator for Castle Biosciences, on the speakers bureau for Valchlor, and on the advisory boards of Janssen and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Popovian, Dr. Snow, Dr. Awsare, and Dr. Kaul had no disclosures.

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