User login
Steroids’ 75th Anniversary: Clinicians Strive to Use Less
Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.
His comments, made during a special session on the 75th anniversary of GCs at EULAR 2024, underscore the endless saga to manage GCs while finding better alternatives. Opinions differ on what the research says on toxicity and dosage and whether a long-term, low-dose option is viable. Alternative therapies are being studied, but those endeavors are still in the early stages of development.
While GCs are still used chronically in many patients, clinicians should always attempt to discontinue them whenever possible, Frank Buttgereit, MD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, told attendees at the congress. Up to 60% of patients in registries use GCs, and many patients with early or established RA enter randomized controlled trials on GCs as maintenance therapy.
The ubiquity of GC usage stems in part from overprescribing by non-rheumatologist physicians who might not have access to or aren’t aware of newer biologics or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). “We see a lot of patients on long-term glucocorticoids, chronic use for years and years, decades of glucocorticoids,” said Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Verona, Italy, who has coauthored several studies on the use of GCs.
Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible
GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.
Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.
Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.
Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.
The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.
EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.
For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.
EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground
While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.
Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.
Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.
The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.
Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.
Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.
One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”
Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.
Two-year results from LoVAS showed noninferiority in remission induction rates and rates of relapse and significantly less frequent serious adverse events between a reduced-dose GC regimen at 0.5 mg/kg/d and conventional high-dose GC regimen at 1 mg/kg/d plus rituximab for ANCA vasculitis.
PEXIVAS demonstrated the noninferiority of a reduced-dose regimen of GCs vs a standard-dose regimen with respect to death or end-stage kidney disease in patients with severe disease involvement.
Debating the Toxicity Threshold
Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.
Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.
Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”
Dr. Merrill, who cares for patients with lupus, said physicians can keep lupus in check for years, using constant, low-dose GCs. “The one thing we know is that steroids work.” But over many years, damage may still occur, she cautioned.
But even a low dose could present health problems to patients. The GLORIA trial of patients with RA, which showed promising results on disease control with 5 mg/d, found an association between GCs and increased risk for infection and osteoporosis. There was a higher overall risk for adverse events related to skin, infections, and bone mineral density changes. Bone mineral density loss and fractures were more common in the GC group, Adami noted.
Surprisingly, some of the trial’s authors said patients could handle such adverse events. But what is your threshold of “acceptable?” Dr. Adami asked.
Other studies have found associations between low-dose GC regimens and adverse events. Researchers of a 2023 study reported bone mineral density loss in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases on a 2.5-mg/d regimen. Another decade-long analysis of Medicare and Optum data found a link between serious infection and low-dose GCs in patients receiving stable DMARD therapy. Investigators reported risk even at daily doses of ≤ 5 mg.
Dr. Adami acknowledged that these studies may have “confounding by indication,” a channeling bias in which people with severe RA are more likely to be treated with GCs. For this reason, it’s a challenge to disentangle the independent role of GCs from the disease activity itself, he said.
The big question is: Why don’t these observational studies show an increased risk for adverse events with biologic drugs that are given to more severe patients? “That confirms the hypothesis that confounding by indication for GCs is minimal, and most of the risk is driven by GCs,” he said.
Tapering Options Across Diseases
Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.
In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.
For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.
However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”
All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.
A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.
For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
“I usually challenge patients with a more rapid taper, hoping to get them off GCs in 6 or even 4 months in some patients, recognizing that many will flare, and we will have to bump up their GC dose,” Dr. Spiera said.
For patients with lupus, GCs remain the most effective treatment, Dr. Merrill said. “The toxicities are unacceptable for long-term use. So we try to get in fast when we need them and get out as soon as possible after that, tapering down as fast as the patient can tolerate it.”
Unfortunately, that’s not always as fast as the clinician or patient hopes for, she said.
“New treatments are being developed that may help us avoid the constant use of steroids. However, it would be wonderful to see how these new safer types of steroids work in lupus,” she said.
Minimizing GCs is an important goal that should be considered and aimed for in every single patient, Dr. Sattui said. “Risk of GC toxicity should be considered in all patients, assessing [them] for cardiometabolic comorbidities, bone metabolic diseases, risk of infection, among many others.” Sticking to one specific GC-tapering protocol might not be achievable for every patient, however, based on disease characteristics, response, and other factors, he added.
Monitoring for GC toxicity is important and should occur during and after every single clinical visit, he emphasized. Patient education is critical. “Different tools have been developed and employed in clinical trials, both patient- and physician-facing instruments. Implementation to clinical practice of some of these should be the next step in order to achieve a more systematic approach.”
What to Consider for AI Symptoms
Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.
Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.
Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.
Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.
His comments, made during a special session on the 75th anniversary of GCs at EULAR 2024, underscore the endless saga to manage GCs while finding better alternatives. Opinions differ on what the research says on toxicity and dosage and whether a long-term, low-dose option is viable. Alternative therapies are being studied, but those endeavors are still in the early stages of development.
While GCs are still used chronically in many patients, clinicians should always attempt to discontinue them whenever possible, Frank Buttgereit, MD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, told attendees at the congress. Up to 60% of patients in registries use GCs, and many patients with early or established RA enter randomized controlled trials on GCs as maintenance therapy.
The ubiquity of GC usage stems in part from overprescribing by non-rheumatologist physicians who might not have access to or aren’t aware of newer biologics or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). “We see a lot of patients on long-term glucocorticoids, chronic use for years and years, decades of glucocorticoids,” said Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Verona, Italy, who has coauthored several studies on the use of GCs.
Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible
GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.
Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.
Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.
Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.
The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.
EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.
For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.
EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground
While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.
Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.
Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.
The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.
Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.
Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.
One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”
Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.
Two-year results from LoVAS showed noninferiority in remission induction rates and rates of relapse and significantly less frequent serious adverse events between a reduced-dose GC regimen at 0.5 mg/kg/d and conventional high-dose GC regimen at 1 mg/kg/d plus rituximab for ANCA vasculitis.
PEXIVAS demonstrated the noninferiority of a reduced-dose regimen of GCs vs a standard-dose regimen with respect to death or end-stage kidney disease in patients with severe disease involvement.
Debating the Toxicity Threshold
Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.
Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.
Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”
Dr. Merrill, who cares for patients with lupus, said physicians can keep lupus in check for years, using constant, low-dose GCs. “The one thing we know is that steroids work.” But over many years, damage may still occur, she cautioned.
But even a low dose could present health problems to patients. The GLORIA trial of patients with RA, which showed promising results on disease control with 5 mg/d, found an association between GCs and increased risk for infection and osteoporosis. There was a higher overall risk for adverse events related to skin, infections, and bone mineral density changes. Bone mineral density loss and fractures were more common in the GC group, Adami noted.
Surprisingly, some of the trial’s authors said patients could handle such adverse events. But what is your threshold of “acceptable?” Dr. Adami asked.
Other studies have found associations between low-dose GC regimens and adverse events. Researchers of a 2023 study reported bone mineral density loss in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases on a 2.5-mg/d regimen. Another decade-long analysis of Medicare and Optum data found a link between serious infection and low-dose GCs in patients receiving stable DMARD therapy. Investigators reported risk even at daily doses of ≤ 5 mg.
Dr. Adami acknowledged that these studies may have “confounding by indication,” a channeling bias in which people with severe RA are more likely to be treated with GCs. For this reason, it’s a challenge to disentangle the independent role of GCs from the disease activity itself, he said.
The big question is: Why don’t these observational studies show an increased risk for adverse events with biologic drugs that are given to more severe patients? “That confirms the hypothesis that confounding by indication for GCs is minimal, and most of the risk is driven by GCs,” he said.
Tapering Options Across Diseases
Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.
In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.
For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.
However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”
All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.
A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.
For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
“I usually challenge patients with a more rapid taper, hoping to get them off GCs in 6 or even 4 months in some patients, recognizing that many will flare, and we will have to bump up their GC dose,” Dr. Spiera said.
For patients with lupus, GCs remain the most effective treatment, Dr. Merrill said. “The toxicities are unacceptable for long-term use. So we try to get in fast when we need them and get out as soon as possible after that, tapering down as fast as the patient can tolerate it.”
Unfortunately, that’s not always as fast as the clinician or patient hopes for, she said.
“New treatments are being developed that may help us avoid the constant use of steroids. However, it would be wonderful to see how these new safer types of steroids work in lupus,” she said.
Minimizing GCs is an important goal that should be considered and aimed for in every single patient, Dr. Sattui said. “Risk of GC toxicity should be considered in all patients, assessing [them] for cardiometabolic comorbidities, bone metabolic diseases, risk of infection, among many others.” Sticking to one specific GC-tapering protocol might not be achievable for every patient, however, based on disease characteristics, response, and other factors, he added.
Monitoring for GC toxicity is important and should occur during and after every single clinical visit, he emphasized. Patient education is critical. “Different tools have been developed and employed in clinical trials, both patient- and physician-facing instruments. Implementation to clinical practice of some of these should be the next step in order to achieve a more systematic approach.”
What to Consider for AI Symptoms
Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.
Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.
Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.
Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.
“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.
His comments, made during a special session on the 75th anniversary of GCs at EULAR 2024, underscore the endless saga to manage GCs while finding better alternatives. Opinions differ on what the research says on toxicity and dosage and whether a long-term, low-dose option is viable. Alternative therapies are being studied, but those endeavors are still in the early stages of development.
While GCs are still used chronically in many patients, clinicians should always attempt to discontinue them whenever possible, Frank Buttgereit, MD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, told attendees at the congress. Up to 60% of patients in registries use GCs, and many patients with early or established RA enter randomized controlled trials on GCs as maintenance therapy.
The ubiquity of GC usage stems in part from overprescribing by non-rheumatologist physicians who might not have access to or aren’t aware of newer biologics or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). “We see a lot of patients on long-term glucocorticoids, chronic use for years and years, decades of glucocorticoids,” said Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Verona, Italy, who has coauthored several studies on the use of GCs.
Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible
GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.
Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.
Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.
Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.
The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.
EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.
For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.
EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground
While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.
Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.
Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.
The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.
Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.
Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.
One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”
Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.
Two-year results from LoVAS showed noninferiority in remission induction rates and rates of relapse and significantly less frequent serious adverse events between a reduced-dose GC regimen at 0.5 mg/kg/d and conventional high-dose GC regimen at 1 mg/kg/d plus rituximab for ANCA vasculitis.
PEXIVAS demonstrated the noninferiority of a reduced-dose regimen of GCs vs a standard-dose regimen with respect to death or end-stage kidney disease in patients with severe disease involvement.
Debating the Toxicity Threshold
Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.
Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.
Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”
Dr. Merrill, who cares for patients with lupus, said physicians can keep lupus in check for years, using constant, low-dose GCs. “The one thing we know is that steroids work.” But over many years, damage may still occur, she cautioned.
But even a low dose could present health problems to patients. The GLORIA trial of patients with RA, which showed promising results on disease control with 5 mg/d, found an association between GCs and increased risk for infection and osteoporosis. There was a higher overall risk for adverse events related to skin, infections, and bone mineral density changes. Bone mineral density loss and fractures were more common in the GC group, Adami noted.
Surprisingly, some of the trial’s authors said patients could handle such adverse events. But what is your threshold of “acceptable?” Dr. Adami asked.
Other studies have found associations between low-dose GC regimens and adverse events. Researchers of a 2023 study reported bone mineral density loss in patients with inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases on a 2.5-mg/d regimen. Another decade-long analysis of Medicare and Optum data found a link between serious infection and low-dose GCs in patients receiving stable DMARD therapy. Investigators reported risk even at daily doses of ≤ 5 mg.
Dr. Adami acknowledged that these studies may have “confounding by indication,” a channeling bias in which people with severe RA are more likely to be treated with GCs. For this reason, it’s a challenge to disentangle the independent role of GCs from the disease activity itself, he said.
The big question is: Why don’t these observational studies show an increased risk for adverse events with biologic drugs that are given to more severe patients? “That confirms the hypothesis that confounding by indication for GCs is minimal, and most of the risk is driven by GCs,” he said.
Tapering Options Across Diseases
Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.
In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.
For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.
However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”
All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.
A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.
For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
“I usually challenge patients with a more rapid taper, hoping to get them off GCs in 6 or even 4 months in some patients, recognizing that many will flare, and we will have to bump up their GC dose,” Dr. Spiera said.
For patients with lupus, GCs remain the most effective treatment, Dr. Merrill said. “The toxicities are unacceptable for long-term use. So we try to get in fast when we need them and get out as soon as possible after that, tapering down as fast as the patient can tolerate it.”
Unfortunately, that’s not always as fast as the clinician or patient hopes for, she said.
“New treatments are being developed that may help us avoid the constant use of steroids. However, it would be wonderful to see how these new safer types of steroids work in lupus,” she said.
Minimizing GCs is an important goal that should be considered and aimed for in every single patient, Dr. Sattui said. “Risk of GC toxicity should be considered in all patients, assessing [them] for cardiometabolic comorbidities, bone metabolic diseases, risk of infection, among many others.” Sticking to one specific GC-tapering protocol might not be achievable for every patient, however, based on disease characteristics, response, and other factors, he added.
Monitoring for GC toxicity is important and should occur during and after every single clinical visit, he emphasized. Patient education is critical. “Different tools have been developed and employed in clinical trials, both patient- and physician-facing instruments. Implementation to clinical practice of some of these should be the next step in order to achieve a more systematic approach.”
What to Consider for AI Symptoms
Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.
Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.
Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.
Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EULAR 2024
New Drugs, Treatment Strategies Aim to Lessen Rheumatic Diseases’ Reliance on Steroids
. Selective GC receptor agonists and modulators and GC plus hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase inhibitor combination therapy are some of the approaches under consideration.
“There is growing observational data that confirms the GC-sparing effect seen in some of these clinical trials in real-world data,” said Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh.
GC minimization is an important goal, “and the data emerging from these trials should be reassuring for rheumatology providers,” Dr. Sattui said.
HSD-1 Inhibitors Under Study
11ß-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11ß-HSD1) is a tissue-specific intracellular modulator of GC action that’s been trialed for a number of rheumatic conditions. “HSD-1 deficiency or inhibition has been consistently associated with reduced GC side effects in mouse and human,” wrote the authors of a study testing the coadministration of HSD-1 inhibitor SPI-62 (clofutriben) with prednisolone in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) to measure its impact on efficacy and toxicity.
Lead study author David Katz, PhD, chief scientific officer at Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, presented results at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
GCs are often the first-line therapy with PMR. However, it’s very difficult for patients to stop taking GCs once they start taking them. The study included patients with PMR who were taking 10 mg/d prednisolone and didn’t require a dose increase. For the study, they continued prednisolone without dose reduction for 4 weeks, receiving either SPI-62 6 mg/d or a matching placebo for 2 weeks.
During SPI-62 treatment, researchers in sequential cohorts maintained daily prednisolone doses at 10 mg, adjusted to 15 mg or adjusted to 20 mg.
A 10-mg dose of prednisolone combined with 6 mg of SPI-62 demonstrated less efficacy compared with placebo but improved upon prednisolone toxicities such as bone formation and resorption biomarkers, lipidemia, and insulin resistance. Doubling the dose to 20 mg prednisolone combined with SPI-62 achieved similar efficacy and maintained improvement of prednisolone toxicity markers.
“In patients with PMR, when we double the dose of prednisolone during coadministration with a potent HSD-1 inhibitor, we are able to have similar stability of symptoms, physical function, and systemic inflammation. At the same time, we are able to show improvements on biomarkers of bone turnover and insulin resistance,” Dr. Katz informed the EULAR 2024 audience.
An ongoing phase 2 clinical trial is testing SPI-62 in patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome. “It’s a longer-term trial, so we’re able to see at least an individual patient’s more clinical outcomes such as reversal of Cushing’s-associated myopathy and the ability of patients to discontinue all of their antidiabetic medications and yet still have good glycemic control,” he said.
Another research team from the United Kingdom explored whether AZD4017, an inhibitor of human 11ß-HSD1, could mitigate GC effects. The researchers randomly assigned 32 healthy male volunteers to AZD4017 or placebo, along with prednisolone. They reported a worsening of hepatic insulin sensitivity in the placebo group but not in the AZD4017 group, and protective effects of AZD4017 on markers of lipid metabolism and bone turnover, as well as lowered nighttime blood pressure. The results signified that coadministration of AZD4017 with prednisolone in men could be a way to reduce GC side effects.
In a Japanese phase 1/2 study, 11ß-HSD1 inhibitor S-707106 proved useful as an insulin sensitizer and antisarcopenic and anti-obesity medication in 16 patients with Cushing syndrome and autonomous cortisol secretion.
Novel Antitumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Antibody Plus GC Receptor Modulator Conjugate
A novel antibody-drug conjugate comprising the anti-TNF monoclonal antibody adalimumab (ABBV-3373) linked to a GC receptor modulator shows promise as a GC alternative.
A notable 2022 study authored by Frank Buttgereit, MD, and other researchers assessed its safety and efficacy in a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, proof-of-concept trial.
ABBV-3373 “was designed to potentially allow precise targeting of activated immune cells while significantly dampening inflammation and minimizing the systemic side effects associated with glucocorticoids,” according to AbbVie, its manufacturer.
A total of 48 adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate were randomized to receive either ABBV-3373 (n = 31) or adalimumab (n = 17). The novel drug at 12 weeks showed a −2.65 reduction in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein, compared with −2.13 for adalimumab. Researchers also predicted ABBV-3373 to be more effective than adalimumab based on in-trial and historical adalimumab data.
“We have great expectations for this molecule,” said Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, who has coauthored several studies on the use of GCs. Plans are underway for a phase 3 study with ABBV-3373.
C5a and Interleukin (IL)-6 Receptor Inhibitors as GC-Sparing Drugs
Investigators in a 2021 paper explored whether the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan could effectively treat patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis without the need for daily GCs, following treatment with either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. They randomized 331 patients to receive avacopan or prednisone given on a tapering schedule for 20 weeks (60 mg/d tapered to discontinuation by week 21). “Avacopan was noninferior but not superior to prednisone taper with respect to remission at week 26 and was superior to prednisone taper with respect to sustained remission at week 52,” the investigators summarized.
A longer trial should test avacopan’s safety and durability in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, they recommended.
Sarilumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds IL-6 receptor alpha and blocks the IL-6 pathway, yielded good results in the phase 3 SAPHYR trial as an alternative for patients with PMR who relapse while tapering prednisone therapy.
Researchers in the SAPHYR trial randomly assigned 118 patients 1:1 to receive a twice-monthly subcutaneous injection of sarilumab over 52 weeks plus a 14-week prednisone taper or placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper. Patients in each group received a tapered GC dose initially at 15 mg/d for 2 weeks in a blinded fashion to control for disease at baseline.
Sarilumab effectively sustained remission in patients, significantly reducing the GC dose compared with placebo.
Disease flare after clinical remission took place in 57% of patients in the placebo group, vs 24% in the sarilumab group. “The placebo-treated patients had a fairly traditional 52-week GC taper. The patients treated with sarilumab had a very rapid GC taper,” said lead study author Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
In his own practice, Dr. Spiera often treats his patients with new-onset PMR with a fairly rapid GC taper, akin to what was used in SAPHYR, recognizing that a portion of these patients can be successfully treated with a relatively brief course of GCs, although the majority will need to have “rescue” therapy for flares with that approach.
In SAPHYR, everyone had previously flared and started at 15 mg/d prednisone at study entry. “In my practice, I don’t always raise the prednisone to 15 mg for a PMR flare. I raise it to whatever dose is necessary to capture control of polymyalgia rheumatica symptoms as I add sarilumab. Often, that is less than 15 mg,” he clarified.
Patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) also struggle to taper or stop using GCs. For these patients, the IL-6 receptor alpha inhibitor tocilizumab has demonstrated benefits in shortening the GC-tapering period.
In the GiACTA trial, researchers randomly assigned 251 patients in a 2:1:1:1 ratio with GCA to receive subcutaneous tocilizumab weekly or every other week, combined with a 26-week prednisone taper, or placebo combined with a prednisone taper over a period of either 26 weeks or 52 weeks. Patients in the tocilizumab arms combined with a 26-week prednisone taper had superior results with GC-free remission compared with those who underwent prednisone tapering plus placebo.
Subsequent studies have investigated the use of tocilizumab in shortening GC tapers. One pilot clinical trial assessed the use of tocilizumab monotherapy following ultrashort-term GC treatment (three pulses of 500 mg of methylprednisolone) in 18 patients with new-onset GCA. Researchers found that approximately 70% of patients were able to achieve and maintain disease remission for 52 weeks. One patient developed anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
Another pilot study of 30 patients with GCA (50% new-onset disease, 50% relapsing disease) concluded that a year of tocilizumab combined with 8 weeks of prednisone could lead to remission. The majority of patients (77% of 30) maintained prednisone-free remission at 52 weeks, and no cases of anterior ischemic optic neuropathy were observed.
“The results of the studies mentioned above are encouraging and suggest that in the setting of IL-6 blockade treatment with tocilizumab, GC tapers shorter than 6 months may be possible. However, in order to be able to recommend short prednisone tapers in GCA, clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different prednisone tapers [such as 8 vs 26 weeks] are required,” said Sebastian H. Unizony, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Massachusetts General Hospital Rheumatology Vasculitis Program, Boston.
“The last several years have been a breakthrough period in GCA, which started with addition of tocilizumab to the therapeutic armamentarium against this disease and continued with several other agents showing promising results in phase 2 trials [of abatacept, mavrilimumab, and secukinumab] and a recently successful phase 3 trial with upadacitinib,” Dr. Unizony said.
Dr. Katz is a corporate officer and stockholder of Sparrow Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Adami has received speaker fees and/or has consulted for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie, and has received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
. Selective GC receptor agonists and modulators and GC plus hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase inhibitor combination therapy are some of the approaches under consideration.
“There is growing observational data that confirms the GC-sparing effect seen in some of these clinical trials in real-world data,” said Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh.
GC minimization is an important goal, “and the data emerging from these trials should be reassuring for rheumatology providers,” Dr. Sattui said.
HSD-1 Inhibitors Under Study
11ß-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11ß-HSD1) is a tissue-specific intracellular modulator of GC action that’s been trialed for a number of rheumatic conditions. “HSD-1 deficiency or inhibition has been consistently associated with reduced GC side effects in mouse and human,” wrote the authors of a study testing the coadministration of HSD-1 inhibitor SPI-62 (clofutriben) with prednisolone in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) to measure its impact on efficacy and toxicity.
Lead study author David Katz, PhD, chief scientific officer at Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, presented results at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
GCs are often the first-line therapy with PMR. However, it’s very difficult for patients to stop taking GCs once they start taking them. The study included patients with PMR who were taking 10 mg/d prednisolone and didn’t require a dose increase. For the study, they continued prednisolone without dose reduction for 4 weeks, receiving either SPI-62 6 mg/d or a matching placebo for 2 weeks.
During SPI-62 treatment, researchers in sequential cohorts maintained daily prednisolone doses at 10 mg, adjusted to 15 mg or adjusted to 20 mg.
A 10-mg dose of prednisolone combined with 6 mg of SPI-62 demonstrated less efficacy compared with placebo but improved upon prednisolone toxicities such as bone formation and resorption biomarkers, lipidemia, and insulin resistance. Doubling the dose to 20 mg prednisolone combined with SPI-62 achieved similar efficacy and maintained improvement of prednisolone toxicity markers.
“In patients with PMR, when we double the dose of prednisolone during coadministration with a potent HSD-1 inhibitor, we are able to have similar stability of symptoms, physical function, and systemic inflammation. At the same time, we are able to show improvements on biomarkers of bone turnover and insulin resistance,” Dr. Katz informed the EULAR 2024 audience.
An ongoing phase 2 clinical trial is testing SPI-62 in patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome. “It’s a longer-term trial, so we’re able to see at least an individual patient’s more clinical outcomes such as reversal of Cushing’s-associated myopathy and the ability of patients to discontinue all of their antidiabetic medications and yet still have good glycemic control,” he said.
Another research team from the United Kingdom explored whether AZD4017, an inhibitor of human 11ß-HSD1, could mitigate GC effects. The researchers randomly assigned 32 healthy male volunteers to AZD4017 or placebo, along with prednisolone. They reported a worsening of hepatic insulin sensitivity in the placebo group but not in the AZD4017 group, and protective effects of AZD4017 on markers of lipid metabolism and bone turnover, as well as lowered nighttime blood pressure. The results signified that coadministration of AZD4017 with prednisolone in men could be a way to reduce GC side effects.
In a Japanese phase 1/2 study, 11ß-HSD1 inhibitor S-707106 proved useful as an insulin sensitizer and antisarcopenic and anti-obesity medication in 16 patients with Cushing syndrome and autonomous cortisol secretion.
Novel Antitumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Antibody Plus GC Receptor Modulator Conjugate
A novel antibody-drug conjugate comprising the anti-TNF monoclonal antibody adalimumab (ABBV-3373) linked to a GC receptor modulator shows promise as a GC alternative.
A notable 2022 study authored by Frank Buttgereit, MD, and other researchers assessed its safety and efficacy in a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, proof-of-concept trial.
ABBV-3373 “was designed to potentially allow precise targeting of activated immune cells while significantly dampening inflammation and minimizing the systemic side effects associated with glucocorticoids,” according to AbbVie, its manufacturer.
A total of 48 adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate were randomized to receive either ABBV-3373 (n = 31) or adalimumab (n = 17). The novel drug at 12 weeks showed a −2.65 reduction in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein, compared with −2.13 for adalimumab. Researchers also predicted ABBV-3373 to be more effective than adalimumab based on in-trial and historical adalimumab data.
“We have great expectations for this molecule,” said Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, who has coauthored several studies on the use of GCs. Plans are underway for a phase 3 study with ABBV-3373.
C5a and Interleukin (IL)-6 Receptor Inhibitors as GC-Sparing Drugs
Investigators in a 2021 paper explored whether the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan could effectively treat patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis without the need for daily GCs, following treatment with either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. They randomized 331 patients to receive avacopan or prednisone given on a tapering schedule for 20 weeks (60 mg/d tapered to discontinuation by week 21). “Avacopan was noninferior but not superior to prednisone taper with respect to remission at week 26 and was superior to prednisone taper with respect to sustained remission at week 52,” the investigators summarized.
A longer trial should test avacopan’s safety and durability in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, they recommended.
Sarilumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds IL-6 receptor alpha and blocks the IL-6 pathway, yielded good results in the phase 3 SAPHYR trial as an alternative for patients with PMR who relapse while tapering prednisone therapy.
Researchers in the SAPHYR trial randomly assigned 118 patients 1:1 to receive a twice-monthly subcutaneous injection of sarilumab over 52 weeks plus a 14-week prednisone taper or placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper. Patients in each group received a tapered GC dose initially at 15 mg/d for 2 weeks in a blinded fashion to control for disease at baseline.
Sarilumab effectively sustained remission in patients, significantly reducing the GC dose compared with placebo.
Disease flare after clinical remission took place in 57% of patients in the placebo group, vs 24% in the sarilumab group. “The placebo-treated patients had a fairly traditional 52-week GC taper. The patients treated with sarilumab had a very rapid GC taper,” said lead study author Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
In his own practice, Dr. Spiera often treats his patients with new-onset PMR with a fairly rapid GC taper, akin to what was used in SAPHYR, recognizing that a portion of these patients can be successfully treated with a relatively brief course of GCs, although the majority will need to have “rescue” therapy for flares with that approach.
In SAPHYR, everyone had previously flared and started at 15 mg/d prednisone at study entry. “In my practice, I don’t always raise the prednisone to 15 mg for a PMR flare. I raise it to whatever dose is necessary to capture control of polymyalgia rheumatica symptoms as I add sarilumab. Often, that is less than 15 mg,” he clarified.
Patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) also struggle to taper or stop using GCs. For these patients, the IL-6 receptor alpha inhibitor tocilizumab has demonstrated benefits in shortening the GC-tapering period.
In the GiACTA trial, researchers randomly assigned 251 patients in a 2:1:1:1 ratio with GCA to receive subcutaneous tocilizumab weekly or every other week, combined with a 26-week prednisone taper, or placebo combined with a prednisone taper over a period of either 26 weeks or 52 weeks. Patients in the tocilizumab arms combined with a 26-week prednisone taper had superior results with GC-free remission compared with those who underwent prednisone tapering plus placebo.
Subsequent studies have investigated the use of tocilizumab in shortening GC tapers. One pilot clinical trial assessed the use of tocilizumab monotherapy following ultrashort-term GC treatment (three pulses of 500 mg of methylprednisolone) in 18 patients with new-onset GCA. Researchers found that approximately 70% of patients were able to achieve and maintain disease remission for 52 weeks. One patient developed anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
Another pilot study of 30 patients with GCA (50% new-onset disease, 50% relapsing disease) concluded that a year of tocilizumab combined with 8 weeks of prednisone could lead to remission. The majority of patients (77% of 30) maintained prednisone-free remission at 52 weeks, and no cases of anterior ischemic optic neuropathy were observed.
“The results of the studies mentioned above are encouraging and suggest that in the setting of IL-6 blockade treatment with tocilizumab, GC tapers shorter than 6 months may be possible. However, in order to be able to recommend short prednisone tapers in GCA, clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different prednisone tapers [such as 8 vs 26 weeks] are required,” said Sebastian H. Unizony, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Massachusetts General Hospital Rheumatology Vasculitis Program, Boston.
“The last several years have been a breakthrough period in GCA, which started with addition of tocilizumab to the therapeutic armamentarium against this disease and continued with several other agents showing promising results in phase 2 trials [of abatacept, mavrilimumab, and secukinumab] and a recently successful phase 3 trial with upadacitinib,” Dr. Unizony said.
Dr. Katz is a corporate officer and stockholder of Sparrow Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Adami has received speaker fees and/or has consulted for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie, and has received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
. Selective GC receptor agonists and modulators and GC plus hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase inhibitor combination therapy are some of the approaches under consideration.
“There is growing observational data that confirms the GC-sparing effect seen in some of these clinical trials in real-world data,” said Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh.
GC minimization is an important goal, “and the data emerging from these trials should be reassuring for rheumatology providers,” Dr. Sattui said.
HSD-1 Inhibitors Under Study
11ß-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11ß-HSD1) is a tissue-specific intracellular modulator of GC action that’s been trialed for a number of rheumatic conditions. “HSD-1 deficiency or inhibition has been consistently associated with reduced GC side effects in mouse and human,” wrote the authors of a study testing the coadministration of HSD-1 inhibitor SPI-62 (clofutriben) with prednisolone in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) to measure its impact on efficacy and toxicity.
Lead study author David Katz, PhD, chief scientific officer at Sparrow Pharmaceuticals, presented results at the at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
GCs are often the first-line therapy with PMR. However, it’s very difficult for patients to stop taking GCs once they start taking them. The study included patients with PMR who were taking 10 mg/d prednisolone and didn’t require a dose increase. For the study, they continued prednisolone without dose reduction for 4 weeks, receiving either SPI-62 6 mg/d or a matching placebo for 2 weeks.
During SPI-62 treatment, researchers in sequential cohorts maintained daily prednisolone doses at 10 mg, adjusted to 15 mg or adjusted to 20 mg.
A 10-mg dose of prednisolone combined with 6 mg of SPI-62 demonstrated less efficacy compared with placebo but improved upon prednisolone toxicities such as bone formation and resorption biomarkers, lipidemia, and insulin resistance. Doubling the dose to 20 mg prednisolone combined with SPI-62 achieved similar efficacy and maintained improvement of prednisolone toxicity markers.
“In patients with PMR, when we double the dose of prednisolone during coadministration with a potent HSD-1 inhibitor, we are able to have similar stability of symptoms, physical function, and systemic inflammation. At the same time, we are able to show improvements on biomarkers of bone turnover and insulin resistance,” Dr. Katz informed the EULAR 2024 audience.
An ongoing phase 2 clinical trial is testing SPI-62 in patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome. “It’s a longer-term trial, so we’re able to see at least an individual patient’s more clinical outcomes such as reversal of Cushing’s-associated myopathy and the ability of patients to discontinue all of their antidiabetic medications and yet still have good glycemic control,” he said.
Another research team from the United Kingdom explored whether AZD4017, an inhibitor of human 11ß-HSD1, could mitigate GC effects. The researchers randomly assigned 32 healthy male volunteers to AZD4017 or placebo, along with prednisolone. They reported a worsening of hepatic insulin sensitivity in the placebo group but not in the AZD4017 group, and protective effects of AZD4017 on markers of lipid metabolism and bone turnover, as well as lowered nighttime blood pressure. The results signified that coadministration of AZD4017 with prednisolone in men could be a way to reduce GC side effects.
In a Japanese phase 1/2 study, 11ß-HSD1 inhibitor S-707106 proved useful as an insulin sensitizer and antisarcopenic and anti-obesity medication in 16 patients with Cushing syndrome and autonomous cortisol secretion.
Novel Antitumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) Antibody Plus GC Receptor Modulator Conjugate
A novel antibody-drug conjugate comprising the anti-TNF monoclonal antibody adalimumab (ABBV-3373) linked to a GC receptor modulator shows promise as a GC alternative.
A notable 2022 study authored by Frank Buttgereit, MD, and other researchers assessed its safety and efficacy in a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, proof-of-concept trial.
ABBV-3373 “was designed to potentially allow precise targeting of activated immune cells while significantly dampening inflammation and minimizing the systemic side effects associated with glucocorticoids,” according to AbbVie, its manufacturer.
A total of 48 adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis receiving background methotrexate were randomized to receive either ABBV-3373 (n = 31) or adalimumab (n = 17). The novel drug at 12 weeks showed a −2.65 reduction in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein, compared with −2.13 for adalimumab. Researchers also predicted ABBV-3373 to be more effective than adalimumab based on in-trial and historical adalimumab data.
“We have great expectations for this molecule,” said Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at the University of Verona, Verona, Italy, who has coauthored several studies on the use of GCs. Plans are underway for a phase 3 study with ABBV-3373.
C5a and Interleukin (IL)-6 Receptor Inhibitors as GC-Sparing Drugs
Investigators in a 2021 paper explored whether the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan could effectively treat patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis without the need for daily GCs, following treatment with either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. They randomized 331 patients to receive avacopan or prednisone given on a tapering schedule for 20 weeks (60 mg/d tapered to discontinuation by week 21). “Avacopan was noninferior but not superior to prednisone taper with respect to remission at week 26 and was superior to prednisone taper with respect to sustained remission at week 52,” the investigators summarized.
A longer trial should test avacopan’s safety and durability in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, they recommended.
Sarilumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds IL-6 receptor alpha and blocks the IL-6 pathway, yielded good results in the phase 3 SAPHYR trial as an alternative for patients with PMR who relapse while tapering prednisone therapy.
Researchers in the SAPHYR trial randomly assigned 118 patients 1:1 to receive a twice-monthly subcutaneous injection of sarilumab over 52 weeks plus a 14-week prednisone taper or placebo plus a 52-week prednisone taper. Patients in each group received a tapered GC dose initially at 15 mg/d for 2 weeks in a blinded fashion to control for disease at baseline.
Sarilumab effectively sustained remission in patients, significantly reducing the GC dose compared with placebo.
Disease flare after clinical remission took place in 57% of patients in the placebo group, vs 24% in the sarilumab group. “The placebo-treated patients had a fairly traditional 52-week GC taper. The patients treated with sarilumab had a very rapid GC taper,” said lead study author Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.
In his own practice, Dr. Spiera often treats his patients with new-onset PMR with a fairly rapid GC taper, akin to what was used in SAPHYR, recognizing that a portion of these patients can be successfully treated with a relatively brief course of GCs, although the majority will need to have “rescue” therapy for flares with that approach.
In SAPHYR, everyone had previously flared and started at 15 mg/d prednisone at study entry. “In my practice, I don’t always raise the prednisone to 15 mg for a PMR flare. I raise it to whatever dose is necessary to capture control of polymyalgia rheumatica symptoms as I add sarilumab. Often, that is less than 15 mg,” he clarified.
Patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) also struggle to taper or stop using GCs. For these patients, the IL-6 receptor alpha inhibitor tocilizumab has demonstrated benefits in shortening the GC-tapering period.
In the GiACTA trial, researchers randomly assigned 251 patients in a 2:1:1:1 ratio with GCA to receive subcutaneous tocilizumab weekly or every other week, combined with a 26-week prednisone taper, or placebo combined with a prednisone taper over a period of either 26 weeks or 52 weeks. Patients in the tocilizumab arms combined with a 26-week prednisone taper had superior results with GC-free remission compared with those who underwent prednisone tapering plus placebo.
Subsequent studies have investigated the use of tocilizumab in shortening GC tapers. One pilot clinical trial assessed the use of tocilizumab monotherapy following ultrashort-term GC treatment (three pulses of 500 mg of methylprednisolone) in 18 patients with new-onset GCA. Researchers found that approximately 70% of patients were able to achieve and maintain disease remission for 52 weeks. One patient developed anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
Another pilot study of 30 patients with GCA (50% new-onset disease, 50% relapsing disease) concluded that a year of tocilizumab combined with 8 weeks of prednisone could lead to remission. The majority of patients (77% of 30) maintained prednisone-free remission at 52 weeks, and no cases of anterior ischemic optic neuropathy were observed.
“The results of the studies mentioned above are encouraging and suggest that in the setting of IL-6 blockade treatment with tocilizumab, GC tapers shorter than 6 months may be possible. However, in order to be able to recommend short prednisone tapers in GCA, clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of different prednisone tapers [such as 8 vs 26 weeks] are required,” said Sebastian H. Unizony, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Massachusetts General Hospital Rheumatology Vasculitis Program, Boston.
“The last several years have been a breakthrough period in GCA, which started with addition of tocilizumab to the therapeutic armamentarium against this disease and continued with several other agents showing promising results in phase 2 trials [of abatacept, mavrilimumab, and secukinumab] and a recently successful phase 3 trial with upadacitinib,” Dr. Unizony said.
Dr. Katz is a corporate officer and stockholder of Sparrow Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Adami has received speaker fees and/or has consulted for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie, and has received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Infection Co-occurring With Lupus Raises Flare Risk
TOPLINE:
Intercurrent infections are associated with an increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares within 3 months, with major infections associated with a 7.4 times higher risk for major flares.
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers prospectively examined the association between intercurrent infections and subsequent SLE flares in 203 patients (median age, 40 years; 91% women) with SLE from the Amsterdam SLE cohort study.
- SLE flares were defined as an increase in disease activity combined with an intensification of immunosuppressive therapy. They were categorized into minor and major flares according to the severity and required treatment.
- Major infections were defined as those requiring hospital admission or intravenous antibiotic therapy, while minor infections did not require hospital admission.
- The risk interval for the occurrence of a disease flare was defined as 3 months from the index date of an infection.
- Patients were followed for a median duration of 6 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of major and minor infections was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) and 63.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 59.3-69.0), respectively.
- Intercurrent infections were associated with a 1.9 times higher risk for SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 1.3-2.9).
- Intercurrent infections were significantly associated with minor SLE flares (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not with major flares.
- Major infections were linked to a 7.4 times higher risk for major SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 2.2-24.6).
IN PRACTICE:
“This finding stresses the importance of awareness and strict monitoring of disease activity in patients with SLE suffering a major infection and prompt adequate treatment in case of the development of a disease flare,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Fatma el Hadiyen, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. It was published online on July 1, 2024, in Lupus Science & Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The reliance on patient recall for minor infections may have introduced recall bias. The small number of patients with identified causative organisms limited the generalizability of the findings. The Bootsma criteria were used for defining SLE flares, which may not align with more recent international standards.
DISCLOSURES:
No specific funding source was reported. One author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Intercurrent infections are associated with an increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares within 3 months, with major infections associated with a 7.4 times higher risk for major flares.
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers prospectively examined the association between intercurrent infections and subsequent SLE flares in 203 patients (median age, 40 years; 91% women) with SLE from the Amsterdam SLE cohort study.
- SLE flares were defined as an increase in disease activity combined with an intensification of immunosuppressive therapy. They were categorized into minor and major flares according to the severity and required treatment.
- Major infections were defined as those requiring hospital admission or intravenous antibiotic therapy, while minor infections did not require hospital admission.
- The risk interval for the occurrence of a disease flare was defined as 3 months from the index date of an infection.
- Patients were followed for a median duration of 6 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of major and minor infections was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) and 63.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 59.3-69.0), respectively.
- Intercurrent infections were associated with a 1.9 times higher risk for SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 1.3-2.9).
- Intercurrent infections were significantly associated with minor SLE flares (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not with major flares.
- Major infections were linked to a 7.4 times higher risk for major SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 2.2-24.6).
IN PRACTICE:
“This finding stresses the importance of awareness and strict monitoring of disease activity in patients with SLE suffering a major infection and prompt adequate treatment in case of the development of a disease flare,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Fatma el Hadiyen, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. It was published online on July 1, 2024, in Lupus Science & Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The reliance on patient recall for minor infections may have introduced recall bias. The small number of patients with identified causative organisms limited the generalizability of the findings. The Bootsma criteria were used for defining SLE flares, which may not align with more recent international standards.
DISCLOSURES:
No specific funding source was reported. One author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Intercurrent infections are associated with an increased risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares within 3 months, with major infections associated with a 7.4 times higher risk for major flares.
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers prospectively examined the association between intercurrent infections and subsequent SLE flares in 203 patients (median age, 40 years; 91% women) with SLE from the Amsterdam SLE cohort study.
- SLE flares were defined as an increase in disease activity combined with an intensification of immunosuppressive therapy. They were categorized into minor and major flares according to the severity and required treatment.
- Major infections were defined as those requiring hospital admission or intravenous antibiotic therapy, while minor infections did not require hospital admission.
- The risk interval for the occurrence of a disease flare was defined as 3 months from the index date of an infection.
- Patients were followed for a median duration of 6 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- The incidence of major and minor infections was 5.3 (95% CI, 4.1-6.9) and 63.9 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 59.3-69.0), respectively.
- Intercurrent infections were associated with a 1.9 times higher risk for SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 1.3-2.9).
- Intercurrent infections were significantly associated with minor SLE flares (hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0) but not with major flares.
- Major infections were linked to a 7.4 times higher risk for major SLE flares within 3 months (95% CI, 2.2-24.6).
IN PRACTICE:
“This finding stresses the importance of awareness and strict monitoring of disease activity in patients with SLE suffering a major infection and prompt adequate treatment in case of the development of a disease flare,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Fatma el Hadiyen, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands. It was published online on July 1, 2024, in Lupus Science & Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The reliance on patient recall for minor infections may have introduced recall bias. The small number of patients with identified causative organisms limited the generalizability of the findings. The Bootsma criteria were used for defining SLE flares, which may not align with more recent international standards.
DISCLOSURES:
No specific funding source was reported. One author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Financial Hardship Common With Rheumatologic Disease: How Can Doctors Help?
Many patients struggle with healthcare costs and basic expenses, according to new research.
People with rheumatologic diseases often experience a hidden symptom: financial toxicity or significant economic strain from out-of-pocket costs. A new study of 41,502 patients published in JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology showed that 20% of those with rheumatologic diseases faced financial hardship from medical expenses, with 55% of those unable to pay their bills.
Compared with patients who do not have rheumatologic diseases, and after clinical and sociodemographic factors were controlled for, patients with rheumatologic diseases were:
- 29% more likely to have high levels of financial hardship — difficulty paying; needing to pay over time; or inability to pay bills for doctors, dentists, hospitals, therapists, medication, equipment, nursing homes, or home care.
- 53% more likely to have high levels of financial distress — significant worry about having enough money for retirement, paying medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident, maintaining their standard of living, paying their usual healthcare costs, and affording their normal monthly bills and housing costs.
- 29% more likely to experience food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
- 58% more likely to report cost-related medication nonadherence — skipping doses, taking less medication, or delaying filling a prescription to save money.
People who were younger than 64 years, male, Black, or uninsured had higher odds of experiencing financial hardship, financial distress, food insecurity, and cost-related medication nonadherence.
This study highlights “just how costly everyday rheumatologic conditions can be for your average American,” said lead study author Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. These diseases can be disabling, limiting a patient’s ability to work at the very time when expensive medications are needed.
“It’s critical for clinicians to recognize how common the financial burden from healthcare costs can be, and only then can they take steps to better support patients,” said G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study.
Here’s how healthcare providers can help.
Consider skipped medication a red flag. It’s often the first sign of a financial concern. “Sometimes with these problems, it looks like simple medication noncompliance, but it’s really a more complex form of nonadherence,” said Susan M. Goodman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and a coauthor of the study. “And I think if someone’s not taking the medication that had been very helpful, it does behoove the physician to try and figure out why that is.”
Normalize the issue to help patients open up. “I will often say, ‘You know, many, many patients don’t take their medicines exactly as prescribed. About how many days a week do you take this medicine?’” said Dr. Alexander. “If you ask in a nonconfrontational, supportive manner, I’ve found that patients are quite candid.”
Don’t assume insurance has it covered. If patients are uninsured, help them enroll in (or renew) insurance coverage. But don’t assume insurance will solve the whole problem. “There are many people who, although they do have coverage, still can’t afford their medications,” said Dr. Goodman.
For products on high formulary tiers, the patient’s monthly cost can be hundreds to thousands of dollars. “Over the past 10-20 years, we’ve seen remarkable technological innovation in the types of medicines being brought to market, and here, I’m referring primarily to biologics and medicines made from living cells,” said Dr. Alexander, “but many of these have a price tag that is simply astronomical, and insurers aren’t going to bear the brunt of these costs alone.”
Biosimilars can be a bit more affordable, but “the dirty little secret of biosimilars is that they’re not really very much less expensive,” said Dr. Goodman. “If your patient is doing well on a drug that gets dropped from their insurance plan’s formulary, or if they switch to a plan that doesn’t cover it, try calling and advocating for an exception. It’s an uphill battle, but it sometimes works,” she said.
If not? Help your patients apply for a patient assistance program. Many drug manufacturers offer copay assistance through their websites, and nonprofit patient assistance organizations such as the PAN Foundation, the Patient Advocate Foundation’s Co-Pay Relief Program, or The Assistance Fund can also help fill the gaps. One study published in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, copay assistance was associated with 79% lower odds of prescription abandonment (failure to fill within 30 days of health plan approval).
Beware of “shiny penny syndrome.” It’s easy to get excited about new, innovative medications, especially when sales reps provide plenty of free samples. “There is a tendency to treat every new medicine as if it’s a bright shiny object in the streambed, and you know that’s not always the case,” said Dr. Alexander. “So, I think we have to be careful, especially in settings when we’re talking about ultra–high-cost medicines, that we’re aware of the burden these medicines may place on patients and that we’re navigating that with patients together, and not simply leaving that as a conversation that never happens in the exam room.”
Maybe there’s an older, time-tested drug that works just as well as the newer, more expensive one. Perhaps there is a slightly less effective medicine that costs a lot less. “These are cost–quality trade-offs that clinicians and patients should be navigating together,” said Dr. Alexander. For example, in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor might work similarly to or almost as well as an interleukin inhibitor, the newer and typically more expensive choice.
“Some clinicians may find it quite unpalatable to be potentially compromising on safety or efficacy in the interest of reducing the cost of therapies, but as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them,’ ” said Dr. Alexander. “So, if the choice is for someone not to be taking a treatment, or to be taking one that may be a little bit less good, I’ll take the latter.”
Consider the patient’s broader care team. Encourage patients to discuss costs with their other healthcare providers. For patients taking multiple medications, a few adjustments could make a big impact on their wallets. Primary care providers or other specialists might recommend some older and less expensive, but still effective, drugs, such as thiazides for hypertension or metformin for type 2 diabetes. Another option might be to simplify the patient’s regimen or include some fixed-dose combination pills in place of two others.
And if no one has referred the patient to a medical social worker, make the connection. A social worker can put patients in touch with local agencies that can help them with food, housing, and other nonmedical costs.
Talk about this problem with anyone who will listen. One of the best ways to help patients with rheumatologic diseases is to ensure that decision-makers don’t overlook them. Professional societies such as the American College of Rheumatology can be great resources for advocacy in Washington, DC. Political movements can make drugs more affordable — for example, insulin prices have dropped in recent years because of political pressure, said Dr. Goodman.
“A lot of our national policy now focuses on aiding patients with single high-cost events, but we hope studies like these can really get policymakers to think through how to better support patients with chronic conditions that may have been historically ignored, such as patients with rheumatologic disease,” said Dr. Amen.
The first step is raising awareness and telling your story. “As providers, we are often [at the] forefront in witnessing how chronic conditions and their associated costs can negatively affect patients’ lives and even alter clinical outcomes,” Dr. Amen added. “By publishing data and sharing meaningful patient stories and clinical vignettes, we can begin to advocate and humanize these patients to policymakers.”
Information on study funding was not available. All authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Many patients struggle with healthcare costs and basic expenses, according to new research.
People with rheumatologic diseases often experience a hidden symptom: financial toxicity or significant economic strain from out-of-pocket costs. A new study of 41,502 patients published in JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology showed that 20% of those with rheumatologic diseases faced financial hardship from medical expenses, with 55% of those unable to pay their bills.
Compared with patients who do not have rheumatologic diseases, and after clinical and sociodemographic factors were controlled for, patients with rheumatologic diseases were:
- 29% more likely to have high levels of financial hardship — difficulty paying; needing to pay over time; or inability to pay bills for doctors, dentists, hospitals, therapists, medication, equipment, nursing homes, or home care.
- 53% more likely to have high levels of financial distress — significant worry about having enough money for retirement, paying medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident, maintaining their standard of living, paying their usual healthcare costs, and affording their normal monthly bills and housing costs.
- 29% more likely to experience food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
- 58% more likely to report cost-related medication nonadherence — skipping doses, taking less medication, or delaying filling a prescription to save money.
People who were younger than 64 years, male, Black, or uninsured had higher odds of experiencing financial hardship, financial distress, food insecurity, and cost-related medication nonadherence.
This study highlights “just how costly everyday rheumatologic conditions can be for your average American,” said lead study author Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. These diseases can be disabling, limiting a patient’s ability to work at the very time when expensive medications are needed.
“It’s critical for clinicians to recognize how common the financial burden from healthcare costs can be, and only then can they take steps to better support patients,” said G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study.
Here’s how healthcare providers can help.
Consider skipped medication a red flag. It’s often the first sign of a financial concern. “Sometimes with these problems, it looks like simple medication noncompliance, but it’s really a more complex form of nonadherence,” said Susan M. Goodman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and a coauthor of the study. “And I think if someone’s not taking the medication that had been very helpful, it does behoove the physician to try and figure out why that is.”
Normalize the issue to help patients open up. “I will often say, ‘You know, many, many patients don’t take their medicines exactly as prescribed. About how many days a week do you take this medicine?’” said Dr. Alexander. “If you ask in a nonconfrontational, supportive manner, I’ve found that patients are quite candid.”
Don’t assume insurance has it covered. If patients are uninsured, help them enroll in (or renew) insurance coverage. But don’t assume insurance will solve the whole problem. “There are many people who, although they do have coverage, still can’t afford their medications,” said Dr. Goodman.
For products on high formulary tiers, the patient’s monthly cost can be hundreds to thousands of dollars. “Over the past 10-20 years, we’ve seen remarkable technological innovation in the types of medicines being brought to market, and here, I’m referring primarily to biologics and medicines made from living cells,” said Dr. Alexander, “but many of these have a price tag that is simply astronomical, and insurers aren’t going to bear the brunt of these costs alone.”
Biosimilars can be a bit more affordable, but “the dirty little secret of biosimilars is that they’re not really very much less expensive,” said Dr. Goodman. “If your patient is doing well on a drug that gets dropped from their insurance plan’s formulary, or if they switch to a plan that doesn’t cover it, try calling and advocating for an exception. It’s an uphill battle, but it sometimes works,” she said.
If not? Help your patients apply for a patient assistance program. Many drug manufacturers offer copay assistance through their websites, and nonprofit patient assistance organizations such as the PAN Foundation, the Patient Advocate Foundation’s Co-Pay Relief Program, or The Assistance Fund can also help fill the gaps. One study published in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, copay assistance was associated with 79% lower odds of prescription abandonment (failure to fill within 30 days of health plan approval).
Beware of “shiny penny syndrome.” It’s easy to get excited about new, innovative medications, especially when sales reps provide plenty of free samples. “There is a tendency to treat every new medicine as if it’s a bright shiny object in the streambed, and you know that’s not always the case,” said Dr. Alexander. “So, I think we have to be careful, especially in settings when we’re talking about ultra–high-cost medicines, that we’re aware of the burden these medicines may place on patients and that we’re navigating that with patients together, and not simply leaving that as a conversation that never happens in the exam room.”
Maybe there’s an older, time-tested drug that works just as well as the newer, more expensive one. Perhaps there is a slightly less effective medicine that costs a lot less. “These are cost–quality trade-offs that clinicians and patients should be navigating together,” said Dr. Alexander. For example, in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor might work similarly to or almost as well as an interleukin inhibitor, the newer and typically more expensive choice.
“Some clinicians may find it quite unpalatable to be potentially compromising on safety or efficacy in the interest of reducing the cost of therapies, but as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them,’ ” said Dr. Alexander. “So, if the choice is for someone not to be taking a treatment, or to be taking one that may be a little bit less good, I’ll take the latter.”
Consider the patient’s broader care team. Encourage patients to discuss costs with their other healthcare providers. For patients taking multiple medications, a few adjustments could make a big impact on their wallets. Primary care providers or other specialists might recommend some older and less expensive, but still effective, drugs, such as thiazides for hypertension or metformin for type 2 diabetes. Another option might be to simplify the patient’s regimen or include some fixed-dose combination pills in place of two others.
And if no one has referred the patient to a medical social worker, make the connection. A social worker can put patients in touch with local agencies that can help them with food, housing, and other nonmedical costs.
Talk about this problem with anyone who will listen. One of the best ways to help patients with rheumatologic diseases is to ensure that decision-makers don’t overlook them. Professional societies such as the American College of Rheumatology can be great resources for advocacy in Washington, DC. Political movements can make drugs more affordable — for example, insulin prices have dropped in recent years because of political pressure, said Dr. Goodman.
“A lot of our national policy now focuses on aiding patients with single high-cost events, but we hope studies like these can really get policymakers to think through how to better support patients with chronic conditions that may have been historically ignored, such as patients with rheumatologic disease,” said Dr. Amen.
The first step is raising awareness and telling your story. “As providers, we are often [at the] forefront in witnessing how chronic conditions and their associated costs can negatively affect patients’ lives and even alter clinical outcomes,” Dr. Amen added. “By publishing data and sharing meaningful patient stories and clinical vignettes, we can begin to advocate and humanize these patients to policymakers.”
Information on study funding was not available. All authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Many patients struggle with healthcare costs and basic expenses, according to new research.
People with rheumatologic diseases often experience a hidden symptom: financial toxicity or significant economic strain from out-of-pocket costs. A new study of 41,502 patients published in JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology showed that 20% of those with rheumatologic diseases faced financial hardship from medical expenses, with 55% of those unable to pay their bills.
Compared with patients who do not have rheumatologic diseases, and after clinical and sociodemographic factors were controlled for, patients with rheumatologic diseases were:
- 29% more likely to have high levels of financial hardship — difficulty paying; needing to pay over time; or inability to pay bills for doctors, dentists, hospitals, therapists, medication, equipment, nursing homes, or home care.
- 53% more likely to have high levels of financial distress — significant worry about having enough money for retirement, paying medical costs in the event of a serious illness or accident, maintaining their standard of living, paying their usual healthcare costs, and affording their normal monthly bills and housing costs.
- 29% more likely to experience food insecurity, defined as limited or uncertain access to adequate food.
- 58% more likely to report cost-related medication nonadherence — skipping doses, taking less medication, or delaying filling a prescription to save money.
People who were younger than 64 years, male, Black, or uninsured had higher odds of experiencing financial hardship, financial distress, food insecurity, and cost-related medication nonadherence.
This study highlights “just how costly everyday rheumatologic conditions can be for your average American,” said lead study author Troy Amen, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgery resident at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City. These diseases can be disabling, limiting a patient’s ability to work at the very time when expensive medications are needed.
“It’s critical for clinicians to recognize how common the financial burden from healthcare costs can be, and only then can they take steps to better support patients,” said G. Caleb Alexander, MD, MS, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who was not involved in the study.
Here’s how healthcare providers can help.
Consider skipped medication a red flag. It’s often the first sign of a financial concern. “Sometimes with these problems, it looks like simple medication noncompliance, but it’s really a more complex form of nonadherence,” said Susan M. Goodman, MD, professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and a coauthor of the study. “And I think if someone’s not taking the medication that had been very helpful, it does behoove the physician to try and figure out why that is.”
Normalize the issue to help patients open up. “I will often say, ‘You know, many, many patients don’t take their medicines exactly as prescribed. About how many days a week do you take this medicine?’” said Dr. Alexander. “If you ask in a nonconfrontational, supportive manner, I’ve found that patients are quite candid.”
Don’t assume insurance has it covered. If patients are uninsured, help them enroll in (or renew) insurance coverage. But don’t assume insurance will solve the whole problem. “There are many people who, although they do have coverage, still can’t afford their medications,” said Dr. Goodman.
For products on high formulary tiers, the patient’s monthly cost can be hundreds to thousands of dollars. “Over the past 10-20 years, we’ve seen remarkable technological innovation in the types of medicines being brought to market, and here, I’m referring primarily to biologics and medicines made from living cells,” said Dr. Alexander, “but many of these have a price tag that is simply astronomical, and insurers aren’t going to bear the brunt of these costs alone.”
Biosimilars can be a bit more affordable, but “the dirty little secret of biosimilars is that they’re not really very much less expensive,” said Dr. Goodman. “If your patient is doing well on a drug that gets dropped from their insurance plan’s formulary, or if they switch to a plan that doesn’t cover it, try calling and advocating for an exception. It’s an uphill battle, but it sometimes works,” she said.
If not? Help your patients apply for a patient assistance program. Many drug manufacturers offer copay assistance through their websites, and nonprofit patient assistance organizations such as the PAN Foundation, the Patient Advocate Foundation’s Co-Pay Relief Program, or The Assistance Fund can also help fill the gaps. One study published in the Journal of Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy showed that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, copay assistance was associated with 79% lower odds of prescription abandonment (failure to fill within 30 days of health plan approval).
Beware of “shiny penny syndrome.” It’s easy to get excited about new, innovative medications, especially when sales reps provide plenty of free samples. “There is a tendency to treat every new medicine as if it’s a bright shiny object in the streambed, and you know that’s not always the case,” said Dr. Alexander. “So, I think we have to be careful, especially in settings when we’re talking about ultra–high-cost medicines, that we’re aware of the burden these medicines may place on patients and that we’re navigating that with patients together, and not simply leaving that as a conversation that never happens in the exam room.”
Maybe there’s an older, time-tested drug that works just as well as the newer, more expensive one. Perhaps there is a slightly less effective medicine that costs a lot less. “These are cost–quality trade-offs that clinicians and patients should be navigating together,” said Dr. Alexander. For example, in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor might work similarly to or almost as well as an interleukin inhibitor, the newer and typically more expensive choice.
“Some clinicians may find it quite unpalatable to be potentially compromising on safety or efficacy in the interest of reducing the cost of therapies, but as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, ‘Drugs don’t work in patients who don’t take them,’ ” said Dr. Alexander. “So, if the choice is for someone not to be taking a treatment, or to be taking one that may be a little bit less good, I’ll take the latter.”
Consider the patient’s broader care team. Encourage patients to discuss costs with their other healthcare providers. For patients taking multiple medications, a few adjustments could make a big impact on their wallets. Primary care providers or other specialists might recommend some older and less expensive, but still effective, drugs, such as thiazides for hypertension or metformin for type 2 diabetes. Another option might be to simplify the patient’s regimen or include some fixed-dose combination pills in place of two others.
And if no one has referred the patient to a medical social worker, make the connection. A social worker can put patients in touch with local agencies that can help them with food, housing, and other nonmedical costs.
Talk about this problem with anyone who will listen. One of the best ways to help patients with rheumatologic diseases is to ensure that decision-makers don’t overlook them. Professional societies such as the American College of Rheumatology can be great resources for advocacy in Washington, DC. Political movements can make drugs more affordable — for example, insulin prices have dropped in recent years because of political pressure, said Dr. Goodman.
“A lot of our national policy now focuses on aiding patients with single high-cost events, but we hope studies like these can really get policymakers to think through how to better support patients with chronic conditions that may have been historically ignored, such as patients with rheumatologic disease,” said Dr. Amen.
The first step is raising awareness and telling your story. “As providers, we are often [at the] forefront in witnessing how chronic conditions and their associated costs can negatively affect patients’ lives and even alter clinical outcomes,” Dr. Amen added. “By publishing data and sharing meaningful patient stories and clinical vignettes, we can begin to advocate and humanize these patients to policymakers.”
Information on study funding was not available. All authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Meet the Pregnancy Challenges of Women With Chronic Conditions
Preconception and prenatal care are more complicated in women with chronic health conditions but attention to disease management and promoting the adoption of a healthier lifestyle can improve outcomes for mothers and infants, according to a growing body of research.
The latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Preconception Checklist, published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, highlights preexisting chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, lupus, and obesity as key factors to address in preconception care through disease management. A growing number of studies support the impact of these strategies on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies, according to the authors.
Meet Glycemic Control Goals Prior to Pregnancy
“Women with diabetes can have healthy pregnancies but need to prepare for pregnancy in advance,” Ellen W. Seely, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical research in the endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“If glucose levels are running high in the first trimester, this is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, some of which are very serious,” said Dr. Seely. Getting glucose levels under control reduces the risk of birth defects in women with diabetes close to that of the general population, she said.
The American Diabetes Association has set a goal for women to attain an HbA1c of less than 6.5% before conception, Dr. Seely said. “In addition, some women with diabetes may be on medications that should be changed to another class prior to pregnancy,” she noted. Women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes often have hypertension as well, but ACE inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of fetal renal damage that can result in neonatal death; therefore, these medications should be stopped prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely emphasized.
“If a woman with type 2 diabetes is on medications other than insulin, recommendations from the ADA are to change to insulin prior to pregnancy, since we have the most data on the safety profile of insulin use in pregnancy,” she said.
To help women with diabetes improve glycemic control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely recommends home glucose monitoring, with checks of glucose four times a day, fasting, and 2 hours after each meal, and adjustment of insulin accordingly.
A healthy diet and physical activity remain important components of glycemic control as well. A barrier to proper preconception and prenatal care for women with diabetes is not knowing that a pregnancy should be planned, Dr. Seely said. Discussions about pregnancy should start at puberty for women with diabetes, according to the ADA, and the topic should be raised yearly so women can optimize their health and adjust medications prior to conception.
Although studies of drugs have been done to inform preconception care for women with diabetes, research is lacking in several areas, notably the safety of GLP-1 agonists in pregnancy, said Dr. Seely. “This class of drug is commonly used in type 2 diabetes and the current recommendation is to stop these agents 2 months prior to conception,” she said.
Conceive in Times of Lupus Remission
Advance planning also is important for a healthy pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sayna Norouzi, MD, director of the glomerular disease clinic and polycystic kidney disease clinic of Loma Linda University Medical Center, California, said in an interview.
“Lupus mostly affects women of childbearing age and can create many challenges during pregnancy,” said Dr. Norouzi, the corresponding author of a recent review on managing lupus nephritis during pregnancy.
“Women with lupus face an increased risk of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, problems with fetal growth, stillbirth, and premature birth, and these risks increase based on factors such as disease activity, certain antibodies in the body, and other baseline existing conditions such as high blood pressure,” she said.
“It can be difficult to distinguish between a lupus flare and pregnancy-related issues, so proper management is important,” she noted. The Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE) study findings indicated a lupus nephritis relapse rate of 7.8% of patients in complete remission and 21% of those in partial remission during pregnancy, said Dr. Norouzi. “Current evidence has shown that SLE patients without lupus nephritis flare in the preconception period have a small risk of relapse during pregnancy,” she said.
Before and during pregnancy, women with lupus should work with their treating physicians to adjust medications for safety, watch for signs of flare, and aim to conceive during a period of lupus remission.
Preconception care for women with lupus nephritis involves a careful review of the medications used to control the disease and protect the kidneys and other organs, said Dr. Norouzi.
“Adjustments,” she said, “should be personalized, taking into account the mother’s health and the safety of the baby. Managing the disease actively during pregnancy may require changes to the treatment plan while minimizing risks,” she noted. However, changing medications can cause challenges for patients, as medications that are safer for pregnancy may lead to new symptoms and side effects, and patients will need to work closely with their healthcare providers to overcome new issues that arise, she added.
Preconception lifestyle changes such as increasing exercise and adopting a healthier diet can help with blood pressure control for kidney disease patients, said Dr. Norouzi.
In the review article, Dr. Norouzi and colleagues noted that preconception counseling for patients with lupus should address common comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidemia, and the risk for immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications.
Benefits of Preconception Obesity Care Extend to Infants
Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine advise lifestyle interventions to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy and reduce the risk of inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lipotoxicity that can promote complications in the mother and fetus during pregnancy.
In addition, a growing number of studies suggest that women with obesity who make healthy lifestyle changes prior to conception can reduce obesity-associated risks to their infants.
Adults born to women with obesity are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early signs of heart remodeling are identifiable in newborns, Samuel J. Burden, PhD, a research associate in the department of women and children’s health, Kings’ College, London, said in an interview. “It is therefore important to investigate whether intervening either before or during pregnancy by promoting a healthy lifestyle can reduce this adverse impact on the heart and blood vessels,” he said.
In a recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Burden and colleagues examined data from eight studies based on data from five randomized, controlled trials including children of mothers with obesity who engaged in healthy lifestyle interventions of improved diet and increased physical activity prior to and during pregnancy. The study population included children ranging in age from less than 2 months to 3-7 years.
Lifestyle interventions for mothers both before conception and during pregnancy were associated with significant changes in cardiac remodeling in the children, notably reduced interventricular septal wall thickness. Additionally, five studies of cardiac systolic function and three studies of diastolic function showed improvement in blood pressure in children of mothers who took part in the interventions.
Dr. Burden acknowledged that lifestyle changes in women with obesity before conception and during pregnancy can be challenging, but should be encouraged. “During pregnancy, it may also seem unnatural to increase daily physical activity or change the way you are eating.” He emphasized that patients should consult their physicians and follow an established program. More randomized, controlled trials are needed from the preconception period to examine whether the health benefits are greater if the intervention begins prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Burden. However, “the current findings indeed indicate that women with obesity who lead a healthy lifestyle before and during their pregnancy can reduce the degree of unhealthy heart remodeling in their children,” he said.
Dr. Seely, Dr. Norouzi, and Dr. Burden had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Preconception and prenatal care are more complicated in women with chronic health conditions but attention to disease management and promoting the adoption of a healthier lifestyle can improve outcomes for mothers and infants, according to a growing body of research.
The latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Preconception Checklist, published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, highlights preexisting chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, lupus, and obesity as key factors to address in preconception care through disease management. A growing number of studies support the impact of these strategies on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies, according to the authors.
Meet Glycemic Control Goals Prior to Pregnancy
“Women with diabetes can have healthy pregnancies but need to prepare for pregnancy in advance,” Ellen W. Seely, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical research in the endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“If glucose levels are running high in the first trimester, this is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, some of which are very serious,” said Dr. Seely. Getting glucose levels under control reduces the risk of birth defects in women with diabetes close to that of the general population, she said.
The American Diabetes Association has set a goal for women to attain an HbA1c of less than 6.5% before conception, Dr. Seely said. “In addition, some women with diabetes may be on medications that should be changed to another class prior to pregnancy,” she noted. Women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes often have hypertension as well, but ACE inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of fetal renal damage that can result in neonatal death; therefore, these medications should be stopped prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely emphasized.
“If a woman with type 2 diabetes is on medications other than insulin, recommendations from the ADA are to change to insulin prior to pregnancy, since we have the most data on the safety profile of insulin use in pregnancy,” she said.
To help women with diabetes improve glycemic control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely recommends home glucose monitoring, with checks of glucose four times a day, fasting, and 2 hours after each meal, and adjustment of insulin accordingly.
A healthy diet and physical activity remain important components of glycemic control as well. A barrier to proper preconception and prenatal care for women with diabetes is not knowing that a pregnancy should be planned, Dr. Seely said. Discussions about pregnancy should start at puberty for women with diabetes, according to the ADA, and the topic should be raised yearly so women can optimize their health and adjust medications prior to conception.
Although studies of drugs have been done to inform preconception care for women with diabetes, research is lacking in several areas, notably the safety of GLP-1 agonists in pregnancy, said Dr. Seely. “This class of drug is commonly used in type 2 diabetes and the current recommendation is to stop these agents 2 months prior to conception,” she said.
Conceive in Times of Lupus Remission
Advance planning also is important for a healthy pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sayna Norouzi, MD, director of the glomerular disease clinic and polycystic kidney disease clinic of Loma Linda University Medical Center, California, said in an interview.
“Lupus mostly affects women of childbearing age and can create many challenges during pregnancy,” said Dr. Norouzi, the corresponding author of a recent review on managing lupus nephritis during pregnancy.
“Women with lupus face an increased risk of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, problems with fetal growth, stillbirth, and premature birth, and these risks increase based on factors such as disease activity, certain antibodies in the body, and other baseline existing conditions such as high blood pressure,” she said.
“It can be difficult to distinguish between a lupus flare and pregnancy-related issues, so proper management is important,” she noted. The Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE) study findings indicated a lupus nephritis relapse rate of 7.8% of patients in complete remission and 21% of those in partial remission during pregnancy, said Dr. Norouzi. “Current evidence has shown that SLE patients without lupus nephritis flare in the preconception period have a small risk of relapse during pregnancy,” she said.
Before and during pregnancy, women with lupus should work with their treating physicians to adjust medications for safety, watch for signs of flare, and aim to conceive during a period of lupus remission.
Preconception care for women with lupus nephritis involves a careful review of the medications used to control the disease and protect the kidneys and other organs, said Dr. Norouzi.
“Adjustments,” she said, “should be personalized, taking into account the mother’s health and the safety of the baby. Managing the disease actively during pregnancy may require changes to the treatment plan while minimizing risks,” she noted. However, changing medications can cause challenges for patients, as medications that are safer for pregnancy may lead to new symptoms and side effects, and patients will need to work closely with their healthcare providers to overcome new issues that arise, she added.
Preconception lifestyle changes such as increasing exercise and adopting a healthier diet can help with blood pressure control for kidney disease patients, said Dr. Norouzi.
In the review article, Dr. Norouzi and colleagues noted that preconception counseling for patients with lupus should address common comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidemia, and the risk for immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications.
Benefits of Preconception Obesity Care Extend to Infants
Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine advise lifestyle interventions to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy and reduce the risk of inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lipotoxicity that can promote complications in the mother and fetus during pregnancy.
In addition, a growing number of studies suggest that women with obesity who make healthy lifestyle changes prior to conception can reduce obesity-associated risks to their infants.
Adults born to women with obesity are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early signs of heart remodeling are identifiable in newborns, Samuel J. Burden, PhD, a research associate in the department of women and children’s health, Kings’ College, London, said in an interview. “It is therefore important to investigate whether intervening either before or during pregnancy by promoting a healthy lifestyle can reduce this adverse impact on the heart and blood vessels,” he said.
In a recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Burden and colleagues examined data from eight studies based on data from five randomized, controlled trials including children of mothers with obesity who engaged in healthy lifestyle interventions of improved diet and increased physical activity prior to and during pregnancy. The study population included children ranging in age from less than 2 months to 3-7 years.
Lifestyle interventions for mothers both before conception and during pregnancy were associated with significant changes in cardiac remodeling in the children, notably reduced interventricular septal wall thickness. Additionally, five studies of cardiac systolic function and three studies of diastolic function showed improvement in blood pressure in children of mothers who took part in the interventions.
Dr. Burden acknowledged that lifestyle changes in women with obesity before conception and during pregnancy can be challenging, but should be encouraged. “During pregnancy, it may also seem unnatural to increase daily physical activity or change the way you are eating.” He emphasized that patients should consult their physicians and follow an established program. More randomized, controlled trials are needed from the preconception period to examine whether the health benefits are greater if the intervention begins prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Burden. However, “the current findings indeed indicate that women with obesity who lead a healthy lifestyle before and during their pregnancy can reduce the degree of unhealthy heart remodeling in their children,” he said.
Dr. Seely, Dr. Norouzi, and Dr. Burden had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Preconception and prenatal care are more complicated in women with chronic health conditions but attention to disease management and promoting the adoption of a healthier lifestyle can improve outcomes for mothers and infants, according to a growing body of research.
The latest version of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Preconception Checklist, published in the International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, highlights preexisting chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, lupus, and obesity as key factors to address in preconception care through disease management. A growing number of studies support the impact of these strategies on short- and long-term outcomes for mothers and babies, according to the authors.
Meet Glycemic Control Goals Prior to Pregnancy
“Women with diabetes can have healthy pregnancies but need to prepare for pregnancy in advance,” Ellen W. Seely, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of clinical research in the endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension division of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“If glucose levels are running high in the first trimester, this is associated with an increased risk of birth defects, some of which are very serious,” said Dr. Seely. Getting glucose levels under control reduces the risk of birth defects in women with diabetes close to that of the general population, she said.
The American Diabetes Association has set a goal for women to attain an HbA1c of less than 6.5% before conception, Dr. Seely said. “In addition, some women with diabetes may be on medications that should be changed to another class prior to pregnancy,” she noted. Women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes often have hypertension as well, but ACE inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of fetal renal damage that can result in neonatal death; therefore, these medications should be stopped prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely emphasized.
“If a woman with type 2 diabetes is on medications other than insulin, recommendations from the ADA are to change to insulin prior to pregnancy, since we have the most data on the safety profile of insulin use in pregnancy,” she said.
To help women with diabetes improve glycemic control prior to pregnancy, Dr. Seely recommends home glucose monitoring, with checks of glucose four times a day, fasting, and 2 hours after each meal, and adjustment of insulin accordingly.
A healthy diet and physical activity remain important components of glycemic control as well. A barrier to proper preconception and prenatal care for women with diabetes is not knowing that a pregnancy should be planned, Dr. Seely said. Discussions about pregnancy should start at puberty for women with diabetes, according to the ADA, and the topic should be raised yearly so women can optimize their health and adjust medications prior to conception.
Although studies of drugs have been done to inform preconception care for women with diabetes, research is lacking in several areas, notably the safety of GLP-1 agonists in pregnancy, said Dr. Seely. “This class of drug is commonly used in type 2 diabetes and the current recommendation is to stop these agents 2 months prior to conception,” she said.
Conceive in Times of Lupus Remission
Advance planning also is important for a healthy pregnancy in women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sayna Norouzi, MD, director of the glomerular disease clinic and polycystic kidney disease clinic of Loma Linda University Medical Center, California, said in an interview.
“Lupus mostly affects women of childbearing age and can create many challenges during pregnancy,” said Dr. Norouzi, the corresponding author of a recent review on managing lupus nephritis during pregnancy.
“Women with lupus face an increased risk of pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, problems with fetal growth, stillbirth, and premature birth, and these risks increase based on factors such as disease activity, certain antibodies in the body, and other baseline existing conditions such as high blood pressure,” she said.
“It can be difficult to distinguish between a lupus flare and pregnancy-related issues, so proper management is important,” she noted. The Predictors of Pregnancy Outcome: Biomarkers in Antiphospholipid Syndrome and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (PROMISSE) study findings indicated a lupus nephritis relapse rate of 7.8% of patients in complete remission and 21% of those in partial remission during pregnancy, said Dr. Norouzi. “Current evidence has shown that SLE patients without lupus nephritis flare in the preconception period have a small risk of relapse during pregnancy,” she said.
Before and during pregnancy, women with lupus should work with their treating physicians to adjust medications for safety, watch for signs of flare, and aim to conceive during a period of lupus remission.
Preconception care for women with lupus nephritis involves a careful review of the medications used to control the disease and protect the kidneys and other organs, said Dr. Norouzi.
“Adjustments,” she said, “should be personalized, taking into account the mother’s health and the safety of the baby. Managing the disease actively during pregnancy may require changes to the treatment plan while minimizing risks,” she noted. However, changing medications can cause challenges for patients, as medications that are safer for pregnancy may lead to new symptoms and side effects, and patients will need to work closely with their healthcare providers to overcome new issues that arise, she added.
Preconception lifestyle changes such as increasing exercise and adopting a healthier diet can help with blood pressure control for kidney disease patients, said Dr. Norouzi.
In the review article, Dr. Norouzi and colleagues noted that preconception counseling for patients with lupus should address common comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidemia, and the risk for immediate and long-term cardiovascular complications.
Benefits of Preconception Obesity Care Extend to Infants
Current guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Institute of Medicine advise lifestyle interventions to reduce excessive weight gain during pregnancy and reduce the risk of inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, and lipotoxicity that can promote complications in the mother and fetus during pregnancy.
In addition, a growing number of studies suggest that women with obesity who make healthy lifestyle changes prior to conception can reduce obesity-associated risks to their infants.
Adults born to women with obesity are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and early signs of heart remodeling are identifiable in newborns, Samuel J. Burden, PhD, a research associate in the department of women and children’s health, Kings’ College, London, said in an interview. “It is therefore important to investigate whether intervening either before or during pregnancy by promoting a healthy lifestyle can reduce this adverse impact on the heart and blood vessels,” he said.
In a recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity, Dr. Burden and colleagues examined data from eight studies based on data from five randomized, controlled trials including children of mothers with obesity who engaged in healthy lifestyle interventions of improved diet and increased physical activity prior to and during pregnancy. The study population included children ranging in age from less than 2 months to 3-7 years.
Lifestyle interventions for mothers both before conception and during pregnancy were associated with significant changes in cardiac remodeling in the children, notably reduced interventricular septal wall thickness. Additionally, five studies of cardiac systolic function and three studies of diastolic function showed improvement in blood pressure in children of mothers who took part in the interventions.
Dr. Burden acknowledged that lifestyle changes in women with obesity before conception and during pregnancy can be challenging, but should be encouraged. “During pregnancy, it may also seem unnatural to increase daily physical activity or change the way you are eating.” He emphasized that patients should consult their physicians and follow an established program. More randomized, controlled trials are needed from the preconception period to examine whether the health benefits are greater if the intervention begins prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Burden. However, “the current findings indeed indicate that women with obesity who lead a healthy lifestyle before and during their pregnancy can reduce the degree of unhealthy heart remodeling in their children,” he said.
Dr. Seely, Dr. Norouzi, and Dr. Burden had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Women’s Risk for Lupus Rises With Greater Intake of Ultraprocessed Foods
TOPLINE:
A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
- Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
- Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.
TAKEAWAY:
- A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
- The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
- Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
- No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practical application.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
- Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
- Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.
TAKEAWAY:
- A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
- The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
- Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
- No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practical application.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
- Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
- Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.
TAKEAWAY:
- A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
- The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
- Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
- No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practical application.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sustained Low Lupus Disease Activity May Give Lower Risk for Flares, Organ Damage
TOPLINE:
A threshold of sustained lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) or remission for 3 months significantly reduces the risk for damage accrual and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with longer durations offering even greater protection.
METHODOLOGY:
- This large, prospective, multicenter study aimed to quantify the impact of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage and flares.
- It included 3449 patients (age, ≥ 18 years; 92.2% women) with SLE from 25 centers across 12 countries, analyzing a total of 37,662 visits.
- Sustained LLDAS or remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits over > 3 months in the respective state.
- The primary outcome measured was the accrual of irreversible organ damage, with flares as a key secondary outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 80.2% of patients achieved LLDAS at least once, with 72.7% experiencing at least one episode of sustained LLDAS.
- Sustained LLDAS for > 3 months was linked to a reduced risk for damage accrual (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001).
- Protection from flares also increased with all durations of sustained LLDAS > 3 months (> 3 months: HR, 0.56; P < .0001; > 36 months: HR, 0.17; P < .0001).
- Longer periods of sustained LLDAS or remission were associated with significantly higher degrees of protection.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings support the use of these treat-to-target endpoints in clinical practice and provide a practical target to aim for in SLE treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Vera Golder, MBBS, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.
LIMITATIONS:
While the study’s large scale and multinational cohort provided robust data, its observational design limited the ability to establish causality. The predominance of Asian ethnicity among the participants may have affected the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Additionally, the median follow-up duration of 2.8 years might not have captured long-term outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
Some authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, and honoraria and having other ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A threshold of sustained lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) or remission for 3 months significantly reduces the risk for damage accrual and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with longer durations offering even greater protection.
METHODOLOGY:
- This large, prospective, multicenter study aimed to quantify the impact of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage and flares.
- It included 3449 patients (age, ≥ 18 years; 92.2% women) with SLE from 25 centers across 12 countries, analyzing a total of 37,662 visits.
- Sustained LLDAS or remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits over > 3 months in the respective state.
- The primary outcome measured was the accrual of irreversible organ damage, with flares as a key secondary outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 80.2% of patients achieved LLDAS at least once, with 72.7% experiencing at least one episode of sustained LLDAS.
- Sustained LLDAS for > 3 months was linked to a reduced risk for damage accrual (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001).
- Protection from flares also increased with all durations of sustained LLDAS > 3 months (> 3 months: HR, 0.56; P < .0001; > 36 months: HR, 0.17; P < .0001).
- Longer periods of sustained LLDAS or remission were associated with significantly higher degrees of protection.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings support the use of these treat-to-target endpoints in clinical practice and provide a practical target to aim for in SLE treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Vera Golder, MBBS, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.
LIMITATIONS:
While the study’s large scale and multinational cohort provided robust data, its observational design limited the ability to establish causality. The predominance of Asian ethnicity among the participants may have affected the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Additionally, the median follow-up duration of 2.8 years might not have captured long-term outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
Some authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, and honoraria and having other ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A threshold of sustained lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS) or remission for 3 months significantly reduces the risk for damage accrual and flares in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with longer durations offering even greater protection.
METHODOLOGY:
- This large, prospective, multicenter study aimed to quantify the impact of sustained LLDAS on irreversible damage and flares.
- It included 3449 patients (age, ≥ 18 years; 92.2% women) with SLE from 25 centers across 12 countries, analyzing a total of 37,662 visits.
- Sustained LLDAS or remission was defined as at least two consecutive visits over > 3 months in the respective state.
- The primary outcome measured was the accrual of irreversible organ damage, with flares as a key secondary outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- During a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 80.2% of patients achieved LLDAS at least once, with 72.7% experiencing at least one episode of sustained LLDAS.
- Sustained LLDAS for > 3 months was linked to a reduced risk for damage accrual (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P < .0001).
- Protection from flares also increased with all durations of sustained LLDAS > 3 months (> 3 months: HR, 0.56; P < .0001; > 36 months: HR, 0.17; P < .0001).
- Longer periods of sustained LLDAS or remission were associated with significantly higher degrees of protection.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings support the use of these treat-to-target endpoints in clinical practice and provide a practical target to aim for in SLE treatment,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Vera Golder, MBBS, Monash University, Clayton, Australia. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology.
LIMITATIONS:
While the study’s large scale and multinational cohort provided robust data, its observational design limited the ability to establish causality. The predominance of Asian ethnicity among the participants may have affected the generalizability of the findings to other populations. Additionally, the median follow-up duration of 2.8 years might not have captured long-term outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
Some authors declared receiving grants, consulting fees, payments, and honoraria and having other ties with various sources.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
CAR T-Cell Treatment Data Expands in Refractory Rheumatic Diseases, Demonstrating Consistent Efficacy
VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.
Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies
The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.
The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.
For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.
All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies
These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.
These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.
Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.
Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.
Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.
Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.
After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating
At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.
At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.
Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.
For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery
“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.
Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.
In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.
cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset
With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.
B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.
However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.
The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.
Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.
Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.
Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.
Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.
“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.
Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
Other Case Series Presented at EULAR
Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:
Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.
Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.
Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented. Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.
August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.
Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies
The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.
The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.
For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.
All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies
These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.
These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.
Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.
Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.
Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.
Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.
After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating
At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.
At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.
Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.
For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery
“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.
Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.
In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.
cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset
With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.
B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.
However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.
The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.
Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.
Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.
Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.
Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.
“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.
Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
Other Case Series Presented at EULAR
Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:
Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.
Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.
Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented. Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.
August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — From a dozen or so studies and sessions devoted to the role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in rheumatic diseases at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, the message was uniformly positive, supporting growing evidence that drugs in this class are heading toward a paradigm shift in refractory rheumatic diseases.
Of the reports, an update from a 15-patient case series with at least 1 year of follow-up provides “the first long-term evidence of safety and efficacy in multiple rheumatic diseases,” according to Georg Schett, MD, PhD, director of rheumatology and immunology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
The report of high rates of activity and low relative risk of serious adverse events from the same series was published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine when the median follow-up was 15 months. Almost all of the patients have now completed at least 1 year of follow-up and about a third have completed more than 2 years.
SLE Is Frequently Targeted in CAR T-Cell Studies
The three rheumatic diseases represented in this series of patients, all of whom had failed multiple previous immune suppressive treatments, were systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM), and systemic sclerosis (SSc). After the autologous T cells were harvested, they were expanded and transfected with the CD19 CAR. The proprietary investigational product, called MB-CART19.1 (Miltenyi Biotec), was administered in a single dose of one million cells per kg bodyweight.
The response rates have been, and continue to be, impressive. For the eight patients with SLE, all achieved the definition of remission in SLE criteria after one dose of treatment. Complete resolution of all major symptom types was achieved after 6 months of follow-up. So far, no patient has relapsed.
For the three patients with IIM, all reached the American College of Rheumatology–EULAR criteria for a major response. All creatine kinase levels had normalized by 3 months. In this group, there was one relapse, which occurred after 18 months of follow-up.
All four patients with SSc achieved a major response on the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) group activity index. The median reduction from baseline in the EUSTAR score was 4.2 points, and this has been maintained in follow-up to date.
Remissions Have Persisted Off All Therapies
These remissions were achieved and maintained after a single dose of CAR T-cell therapy despite discontinuation of all immunosuppressive therapies. With the exception of the single relapse, all remissions have persisted through follow-up to date.
These responses were achieved with manageable side effects, according to Dr. Schett. The most serious adverse event was a grade 4 neutropenia that developed 4 months after receiving CAR T cells. It resolved with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor treatment. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) has occurred in 10 patients, but it was grade 1 in eight patients and grade 2 in the others. There has been no neurotoxicity.
Almost all patients have experienced an infection during follow-up, but there has been no discernible pattern in relationship to the timing or types of infections. The most common have involved the upper respiratory tract and have been of mild severity, with cases disseminated similarly over early vs late follow-up. There was one case of pneumonia involving antibiotic treatment and a hospital stay, but it resolved.
Dr. Schett acknowledged that safety is a bigger concern in autoimmune diseases, which are often serious but rarely fatal, than in the hematologic malignancies for which CAR T cells were initially tested, but the low rates of serious adverse events in his and other early studies have supported the premise that the risks are not the same.
Asked specifically if CAR T cells can be considered a game changer in autoimmune rheumatic diseases, Dr. Schett was cautious. One reason is the CAR T cells are a complex therapy relative to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. He thinks, therefore, that much more data are needed to confirm safety and efficacy. In addition, they are expensive, so it is not yet clear how they will be integrated with other options.
Yet, he thinks the evidence so far suggests a profound effect on the fundamental drivers of autoimmune disease. Their specific mechanism of benefit is still being evaluated, but he considers the clinical responses consistent with a “reset” hypothesis.
After a response, “we are seeing drug-free remissions in some patients as long as they have been followed,” Dr. Schett said. Based on the fact that disease control is being observed off all other therapies, “this only makes sense to me if there is some sort of immunologic reset.”
CAR T-Cell Studies in Autoimmune Diseases Are Proliferating
At last count, there were about 40 studies being performed with CAR T cells in various autoimmune diseases, most of which were rheumatologic disorders, according to Dr. Schett. He noted that funding is coming from multinational drug companies, small biotech startups, and investigator-initiated studies at academic centers.
At EULAR, beyond case studies and anecdotal reports, all of the clinical studies were still at the level of phase 1 or 1/2. Consistent with the data presented by Dr. Schett, the drugs have been nearly uniformly effective, with major responses persisting in patients off other therapies. Adverse events have been manageable.
Examples include a phase 1/2 multinational study with the investigational CAR T-cell therapy YTB323 (Novartis), which demonstrated acceptable safety and a strong signal of benefit in six patients with SLE. In this report, CRS was also common, but no case of CRS was more severe than grade 2. There was no neurotoxicity. Infections did occur but were of relatively mild grades and resolved with treatment.
For efficacy in the ongoing follow-up, SLE symptoms as measured with the SLE Disease Activity Index began to abate at about 14 days after the single-infusion treatment. Improvement on the Physician Global Assessment was also observed between 14 and 28 days. C3 and C4 complement levels started to rise at about 28 days. While the responses have correlated with the observed changes in biomarkers of immune function, they have endured through a median follow-up that now exceeds 6 months.
Complete B-Cell Depletion Is Followed by Full Recovery
“Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies revealed peak expansion of CAR T cells approximately 13-21 days post infusion, which was accompanied by deep B-cell depletion followed by subsequent B-cell recovery,” reported Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, PhD, a senior lecturer at Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
Dr. Schett had reported the same pattern of expansion followed by a rapid elimination of detectable CAR T cells despite the sustained clinical benefit.
Dr. Cortés-Hernández said that the signal of efficacy in the context of acceptable safety supports an expansion of clinical studies with this CAR T-cell product in SLE and perhaps other autoimmune disorders.
In another early-stage study, patients with SLE who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy have been enrolled in an ongoing study with a compound CAR (cCAR) T cell. This experimental proprietary product (iCAR Bio Therapeutics, Zhongshan, China) targets both the B-cell maturation antigen and CD19, according to Greg Deener, the chief executive officer of iCell Gene Therapeutics, New York City.
cCAR T-Cell Construct Targets Immune Reset
With this construct, the goal is to deplete long-lived plasma cells as well as B cells in order to achieve a more complete humoral reset. While preliminary data from the phase 1 trial were published earlier this year in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Mr. Deener focused his presentation at EULAR 2024 on 12 patients with SLE and lupus nephritis, a severe form of SLE that threatens glomerular structures and can lead to end-stage liver disease.
B cells in the peripheral blood could not be detected within 10 days of the cCAR infusion, and the immunoglobulins IgM and IgA were undetectable by day 42.
However, after B-cell recovery by day 150, “flow cytometry and B-cell receptor sequencing confirmed full humoral reset was achieved,” Mr. Deener said.
The remission has been durable in 11 of the 12 patients after a mean follow-up of 458 days, Mr. Deener reported. He noted that an improvement in renal function has been observed in the majority of patients.
Like others, he reported that treatment has been relatively well tolerated. In this series of patients, there have been no cases of CRS more severe than grade 1.
Overall, the cCAR data in lupus nephritis support the hypothesis that CAR T cells are reprogramming the immune system, according to Mr. Deener.
Combined with a reasonable safety profile, the consistency of benefit from CAR T cells in autoimmune rheumatic diseases is good news, but all of the investigators who spoke at EULAR agreed that there are still many unanswered questions. Not least, it is unclear whether patients can be effectively and safely retreated when and if relapses occur. Even though Dr. Schett did report a response with retreatment following a relapse, he said that there is no conclusion to draw from a single patient.
Yet, the high rates of remissions in patients with disease refractory to other therapeutic options is highly encouraging, particularly with the manageable side effects now reported by multiple investigators using different CAR T-cell products.
“Roughly 100 patients with rheumatic diseases have been treated with CAR T-cells, and we have not seen a high-grade CRS or neurotoxicity,” he said.
Long-term efficacy is less clear. With the first clinical studies in autoimmune diseases initiated in 2021, few patients have been followed for more than 2 years. Even with the high rates of response that will certainly fuel efforts to rapidly bring these treatments forward, long-term data are now the missing piece.
Other Case Series Presented at EULAR
Several other abstracts reported on patients with SSc who were treated with CD19-targeting CAR T cells:
Three patients for whom autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was contraindicated or unsuccessful were successfully and safely treated.
Six patients with diffuse and progressive disease achieved stable disease activity without additional immunosuppression for up to 1 year after treatment.
Dr. Schett reported no potential conflicts of interest, and the study he presented was not funded by industry. Dr. Cortés-Hernández reported a financial relationship with Novartis, which funded the study of the CAR T-cell therapy YTB323, as well as with GlaxoSmithKline, which was not involved in the study she presented. Mr. Deener is an employee of iCell Gene Therapeutics, which provided funding for the trial he presented.
August 7, 2024 — Editor's note: This article was updated with additional disclosure information for Dr. Josefina Cortés-Hernández.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EULAR 2024
Form of B12 Deficiency Affecting the Central Nervous System May Be New Autoimmune Disease
Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”
“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”
The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
The Patient
The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.
Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.
“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.
Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.
Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
Identifying More Cases
Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.
In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.
Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).
“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.
“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.
Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
Alternative Pathways
Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.
“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.
The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”
“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”
The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
The Patient
The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.
Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.
“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.
Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.
Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
Identifying More Cases
Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.
In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.
Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).
“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.
“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.
Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
Alternative Pathways
Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.
“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.
The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”
“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”
The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
The Patient
The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.
Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.
“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.
Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.
Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
Identifying More Cases
Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.
In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.
Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).
“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.
“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.
Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
Alternative Pathways
Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.
“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.
The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Guide Systemic Sclerosis Treatment in Updated EULAR Recommendations
VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.
“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.
Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management
Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.
A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”
Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”
He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.
The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”
Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”
Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.
To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.
The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.
He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”
For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align
Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.
“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”
In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”
“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
Remission Elusive but Getting Closer
In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.
Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.
Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”
Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.
Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.
“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”
Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.
“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.
Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management
Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.
A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”
Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”
He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.
The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”
Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”
Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.
To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.
The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.
He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”
For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align
Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.
“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”
In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”
“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
Remission Elusive but Getting Closer
In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.
Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.
Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”
Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.
Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.
“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”
Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA – The use of immunosuppressive and antifibrotic drugs to treat skin and lung fibrosis leads updated recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.
“The most impactful new recommendation relates to the evidence for immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics for the treatment of skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis,” said Francesco Del Galdo, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine, consultant rheumatologist, and scleroderma and connective tissue diseases specialist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, England. Dr. Del Galdo presented the update at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
“But there are also new recommendations, including a redefined target population for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following cyclophosphamide, the upfront combination treatment at the time of diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension [PAH], and a negative recommendation for the use of anticoagulants for pulmonary arterial hypertension,” noted Dr. Del Galdo, highlighting key updates in the 2024 recommendations.
Robert B.M. Landewé, MD, PhD, professor and rheumatologist at Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands, co-moderated the session on EULAR recommendations. “The management of systemic sclerosis is a field in which a lot is happening,” he said. “The last update goes back to 2017, and in the meantime, many new approaches have seen the light, especially pertaining to skin fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Six new recommendations have been coined, covering drugs like mycophenolate mofetil, nintedanib, rituximab, and tocilizumab. None of these therapies were present in the 2017 recommendations. It seems the field is now ready to further expand on targeted therapies for the management of musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, calcinosis, and the local management of digital ulcers.”
‘Therapeutic Continuums’ Aid Disease Management
Dr. Del Galdo and his colleagues grouped the various interventions across what the recommendations label as evidence-backed “therapeutic continuums.” These span six of the eight different clinical manifestations of systemic sclerosis: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary hypertension, musculoskeletal manifestations, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and gastrointestinal and renal crisis.
A slide showing the different strengths of evidence for various drugs across the eight manifestations illustrated the principle behind the therapeutic continuums. “These ‘therapeutic continuums’ suggest a common pathogenetic mechanism driving the various manifestations of disease,” said Dr. Del Galdo. For example, he noted, “If rituximab had a positive response in skin and in lung, it suggests that B cells play a role in the clinical manifestations of skin and lung in this disease.”
Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the new immunosuppression continuum and associated treatments for skin and lung fibrosis. “For skin involvement, the task force recommended mycophenolate, methotrexate, and rituximab, with tocilizumab having a lower level of evidence and lower recommendation strength; similarly, in interstitial lung disease, we have rituximab, mycophenolate, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib, and these all have the highest strength of evidence. Tocilizumab is assigned one strength of evidence below the other drugs.”
He also cited the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) drugs that are used across Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, and pulmonary arterial hypertension, which together form a vascular therapeutic continuum.
The complexity of systemic sclerosis and multiple manifestations was a major determinant of the recommendations, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “The task force realized that since this is such a complex disease, we cannot recommend one treatment unconditionally. For example, with mycophenolate mofetil, what works for most patients for the skin and lung manifestations might not for someone who experiences severe diarrhea, in which mycophenolate is contraindicated. So, the highest degree of recommendation that the task force felt comfortable with was ‘should be considered.’ ”
Dr. Del Galdo stressed that the complex nature of systemic sclerosis means that “when thinking of treating one manifestation, you also always need to consider all the other clinical manifestations as experienced by the patient, and it is this multifaceted scenario that will ultimately lead to your final choice.”
Turning to new evidence around drug use, Dr. Del Galdo said that rituximab has the highest level of evidence across skin and lung manifestations, nintedanib is new in lung, and tocilizumab is new across both skin and lung.
To treat systemic sclerosis–pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH), as long as there are no contraindications, the task force recommends using PDE5i and endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) at diagnosis. Data from phase 3 trials show a better outcome when the combination is established early.
The task force suggests avoiding the use of warfarin in PAH. “This is supported by a signal from two trials showing an increase in morbidity and mortality in these patients,” noted Dr. Del Galdo.
He also pointed out that selexipag and riociguat were new and important second-line additions for the treatment of PAH, and — consistent with the ERA approach — the EULAR recommendation supports frequent follow-up to establish a treat-to-target approach to maximizing clinical outcomes in SSc-PAH and SSc-ILD. “Specifically, for the first time, we recommend monitoring the effect of any chosen intervention selected within 3-6 months of starting. The evidence suggests there is a group of patients who respond and some who respond less well and who might benefit from a second-line intervention.”
For example, results of one trial support the approach of adding an antifibrotic agent to reduce progression in people with progressive lung fibrosis. “Similarly, for pulmonary hypertension, we recommend putting patients on dual treatment, and if this fails, place them on selexipag or switch the PDE5i to riociguat,” Dr. Del Galdo said.
Systemic Sclerosis Research Agenda and Recommendations Align
Dr. Del Galdo highlighted the value of therapeutic continuums in advancing disease understanding. “It is starting to teach us what we know and what we don’t and where do we need to build more evidence. Effectively, they determine where the gaps in therapy lie, and this starts to guide the research agenda.
“In fact, what is really interesting about this recommendation update — certainly from the perspective of disease understanding — is that we are starting to have a bird’s-eye view of the clinical manifestations of scleroderma that have so often been dealt with separately. Now we are starting to build a cumulative evidence map of this disease.”
In 2017, the research agenda largely advocated identifying immune-targeting drugs for skin and lung fibrosis, Dr. Del Galdo pointed out. “Now, we’ve done that — we’ve identified appropriate immunosuppressive drugs — and this is testimony to the importance of these recommendations because what prioritized the research agenda 10 years ago ended up informing the clinical trials and made it into the recommendations.”
“We definitely are one step forward compared to this 2017 recommendation and closer to what we would like to do,” he asserted.
Remission Elusive but Getting Closer
In some respects, according to Dr. Del Galdo, research and development is making relatively slow progress, especially compared with other rheumatologic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. “We cannot put patients with systemic sclerosis in remission yet. But I think we are one step ahead in that we’ve now established the treat-to-target approach to maximize the efficacy with which we can stall disease progression, but we cannot yet put these patients into remission,” he said. Systemic sclerosis has multiple manifestations, and fibrotic damage cannot be reversed. “Right now, the scar will remain there forever,” he noted.
Until remission is achievable, Dr. Del Galdo advises diagnosing and treating patients earlier to prevent fibrotic manifestations.
Dr. Del Galdo explained the three leading priorities on the systemic sclerosis research agenda. “There are three because it is such a complex disease. The first is considering the patient voice — this is the most important one, and the patients say they want a more holistic approach — so trialing and treating multiple manifestations together.”
Second, Dr. Del Galdo said, he would like to see a patient-reported measure developed that can capture the entire disease.
Third, from a physician’s point of view, Dr. Del Galdo said, “We want to send the patients into remission. We need to continue to further deconvolute the clinical manifestations and find the bottleneck at the beginning of the natural history of disease.
“If we can find a drug that is effective very early on, before the patients start getting the eight different manifestations with different levels of severity, then we will be on the right road, which we hope will end in remission.”
Dr. Del Galdo has served on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Janssen; consulted for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe; and received grant or research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, Kymab, Janssen, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Landewé had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EULAR 2024