Psoriasis

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) scores were reached by one in four patients after 6 months of therapy in a study that examined six different biologic treatments in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients.

The study was published in May in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

High efficacy rates, which include PASI 100 scores, have been reported in randomized trials of biologics that include anti–interleukin (IL)–17A therapies (secukinumab and ixekizumab), anti–IL-17A–receptor therapies (brodalumab), and anti–IL-23 therapies (guselkumab and risankizumab), but information on rates in real-world cohorts has been limited. “Real-world evidence provided by registries is only beginning to emerge, and efficacy data have mostly been derived from clinical trials,” senior author Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor for translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), said in an interview.

He and his coinvestigators conducted the PSO-BIO-REAL (Plaque Psoriasis Treated With Biologics in a Real World Setting) prospective trial in five countries, to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over a year’s time following administration of a biologic therapy. Patients were 18 years of age or older and had either started a biologic for the first time (biologic-naive) or were transitioning to another biologic (biologic-experienced).

Among 846 participants, 32% were in the United States, followed by France (28%), Italy (22%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Germany (8%). Investigators estimated the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) 6 months after starting a biologic as a primary objective, and as secondary objectives, PASI 100 scores at 1 year and PASI 100 maintenance from 6 to 12 months.

Nearly 200 patients withdrew during the course of the study, and 108 switched treatments. Therapies varied among patients: 61% received an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent such as etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol as an initial biologic treatment, 30% received an anti–IL-12/-23 agent (ustekinumab), and 9% received an anti-IL-17 agent (secukinumab). Additionally, 23% received a concomitant psoriasis medication.

PASI assessments were completed in 603 patients at 6 months, and 522 patients at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months respectively, 23% and 26% of the patients had achieved a PASI 100 score. Investigators noted that the rate of complete skin clearance declined as the number of baseline comorbidities and the number of prior biologics increased.

Biologic-experienced patients at study entry had lower PASI 100 response rates (about 20% at 6 and 12 months) than the biologic-naive patients (25% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months). Dr. Reich pointed out that many biologic-experienced patients often have active disease, despite previous use of biologics, and “they’re likely to represent a more difficult-to-treat population.” Factors such as convenience, safety, and the fact that more complicated patients – those with weight issues, more comorbidities and pretreatments, and lower compliance – are treated in real life than in clinical trials, are likely to influence lack of response in real-world data, Dr. Reich said.

The study’s enrollment period took place from 2014 to 2015, so it did not include patients on newer biologics such as brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and tildrakizumab. “Some of these newer therapies have shown greater efficacy than drugs such as ustekinumab and etanercept in clinical trials, and patients are more likely to achieve complete skin clearance. Therefore, real-world rates of complete clearance may have improved since this study concluded,” the investigators pointed out.

Possible limitations of the study include selection bias and possible confounders, they noted.

The study was sponsored by Amgen/AstraZeneca; the manuscript was sponsored by LEO Pharma. One author was an AstraZeneca employee, two are LEO pharma employees, one author had no disclosures, and the remaining authors, including Dr. Reich, disclosed serving as an adviser, paid speaker, consultant, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Seneschal J et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16568.

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) scores were reached by one in four patients after 6 months of therapy in a study that examined six different biologic treatments in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients.

The study was published in May in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

High efficacy rates, which include PASI 100 scores, have been reported in randomized trials of biologics that include anti–interleukin (IL)–17A therapies (secukinumab and ixekizumab), anti–IL-17A–receptor therapies (brodalumab), and anti–IL-23 therapies (guselkumab and risankizumab), but information on rates in real-world cohorts has been limited. “Real-world evidence provided by registries is only beginning to emerge, and efficacy data have mostly been derived from clinical trials,” senior author Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor for translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), said in an interview.

He and his coinvestigators conducted the PSO-BIO-REAL (Plaque Psoriasis Treated With Biologics in a Real World Setting) prospective trial in five countries, to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over a year’s time following administration of a biologic therapy. Patients were 18 years of age or older and had either started a biologic for the first time (biologic-naive) or were transitioning to another biologic (biologic-experienced).

Among 846 participants, 32% were in the United States, followed by France (28%), Italy (22%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Germany (8%). Investigators estimated the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) 6 months after starting a biologic as a primary objective, and as secondary objectives, PASI 100 scores at 1 year and PASI 100 maintenance from 6 to 12 months.

Nearly 200 patients withdrew during the course of the study, and 108 switched treatments. Therapies varied among patients: 61% received an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent such as etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol as an initial biologic treatment, 30% received an anti–IL-12/-23 agent (ustekinumab), and 9% received an anti-IL-17 agent (secukinumab). Additionally, 23% received a concomitant psoriasis medication.

PASI assessments were completed in 603 patients at 6 months, and 522 patients at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months respectively, 23% and 26% of the patients had achieved a PASI 100 score. Investigators noted that the rate of complete skin clearance declined as the number of baseline comorbidities and the number of prior biologics increased.

Biologic-experienced patients at study entry had lower PASI 100 response rates (about 20% at 6 and 12 months) than the biologic-naive patients (25% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months). Dr. Reich pointed out that many biologic-experienced patients often have active disease, despite previous use of biologics, and “they’re likely to represent a more difficult-to-treat population.” Factors such as convenience, safety, and the fact that more complicated patients – those with weight issues, more comorbidities and pretreatments, and lower compliance – are treated in real life than in clinical trials, are likely to influence lack of response in real-world data, Dr. Reich said.

The study’s enrollment period took place from 2014 to 2015, so it did not include patients on newer biologics such as brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and tildrakizumab. “Some of these newer therapies have shown greater efficacy than drugs such as ustekinumab and etanercept in clinical trials, and patients are more likely to achieve complete skin clearance. Therefore, real-world rates of complete clearance may have improved since this study concluded,” the investigators pointed out.

Possible limitations of the study include selection bias and possible confounders, they noted.

The study was sponsored by Amgen/AstraZeneca; the manuscript was sponsored by LEO Pharma. One author was an AstraZeneca employee, two are LEO pharma employees, one author had no disclosures, and the remaining authors, including Dr. Reich, disclosed serving as an adviser, paid speaker, consultant, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Seneschal J et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16568.

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 100) scores were reached by one in four patients after 6 months of therapy in a study that examined six different biologic treatments in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients.

The study was published in May in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

High efficacy rates, which include PASI 100 scores, have been reported in randomized trials of biologics that include anti–interleukin (IL)–17A therapies (secukinumab and ixekizumab), anti–IL-17A–receptor therapies (brodalumab), and anti–IL-23 therapies (guselkumab and risankizumab), but information on rates in real-world cohorts has been limited. “Real-world evidence provided by registries is only beginning to emerge, and efficacy data have mostly been derived from clinical trials,” senior author Kristian Reich, MD, PhD, professor for translational research in inflammatory skin diseases at the Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany), said in an interview.

He and his coinvestigators conducted the PSO-BIO-REAL (Plaque Psoriasis Treated With Biologics in a Real World Setting) prospective trial in five countries, to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over a year’s time following administration of a biologic therapy. Patients were 18 years of age or older and had either started a biologic for the first time (biologic-naive) or were transitioning to another biologic (biologic-experienced).

Among 846 participants, 32% were in the United States, followed by France (28%), Italy (22%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Germany (8%). Investigators estimated the proportion of patients achieving a PASI 100 (complete skin clearance) 6 months after starting a biologic as a primary objective, and as secondary objectives, PASI 100 scores at 1 year and PASI 100 maintenance from 6 to 12 months.

Nearly 200 patients withdrew during the course of the study, and 108 switched treatments. Therapies varied among patients: 61% received an anti–tumor necrosis factor agent such as etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, or certolizumab pegol as an initial biologic treatment, 30% received an anti–IL-12/-23 agent (ustekinumab), and 9% received an anti-IL-17 agent (secukinumab). Additionally, 23% received a concomitant psoriasis medication.

PASI assessments were completed in 603 patients at 6 months, and 522 patients at 12 months. At 6 and 12 months respectively, 23% and 26% of the patients had achieved a PASI 100 score. Investigators noted that the rate of complete skin clearance declined as the number of baseline comorbidities and the number of prior biologics increased.

Biologic-experienced patients at study entry had lower PASI 100 response rates (about 20% at 6 and 12 months) than the biologic-naive patients (25% at 6 months, 30% at 12 months). Dr. Reich pointed out that many biologic-experienced patients often have active disease, despite previous use of biologics, and “they’re likely to represent a more difficult-to-treat population.” Factors such as convenience, safety, and the fact that more complicated patients – those with weight issues, more comorbidities and pretreatments, and lower compliance – are treated in real life than in clinical trials, are likely to influence lack of response in real-world data, Dr. Reich said.

The study’s enrollment period took place from 2014 to 2015, so it did not include patients on newer biologics such as brodalumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and tildrakizumab. “Some of these newer therapies have shown greater efficacy than drugs such as ustekinumab and etanercept in clinical trials, and patients are more likely to achieve complete skin clearance. Therefore, real-world rates of complete clearance may have improved since this study concluded,” the investigators pointed out.

Possible limitations of the study include selection bias and possible confounders, they noted.

The study was sponsored by Amgen/AstraZeneca; the manuscript was sponsored by LEO Pharma. One author was an AstraZeneca employee, two are LEO pharma employees, one author had no disclosures, and the remaining authors, including Dr. Reich, disclosed serving as an adviser, paid speaker, consultant, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Seneschal J et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1111/jdv.16568.

The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.

The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.

Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).

Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.

The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.

Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).

Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.

The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.

Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).

Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Emphasizing the potential harms of not taking a psoriasis treatment may make patients more likely to agree to start that therapy, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, held virtually.

“We typically explain to patients the benefits of treatment,” Ari A. Kassardjian, BS, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in his presentation. “However, explaining to them the harmful effects on their skin and joint diseases, such as exacerbation of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, could offer some patients a new perspective that may influence their treatment preferences; and ultimately, better communication may lead to better medication adherence in patients.”

In the study he presented, explaining to patients possible outcomes without treatment was more effective in getting them to agree to treatment than was messaging that focused on the positive effects of a therapy (reducing disease severity and pain, and improved health).

He noted that the impact of framing choices in terms of gain or loss on decision-making has been measured in other areas of medicine, including in patients with multiple sclerosis where medication adherence is an issue (J Health Commun. 2017 Jun;22[6]:523-31). “Gain-framed” messages focus on the benefits of taking a medication, while “loss-framed” messages highlight the potential consequences of not agreeing or adhering to treatment.

In the study, Mr. Kassardjian and coinvestigators evaluated 90 patients with psoriasis who were randomized to receive a gain-framed or loss-framed message about a hypothetical new biologic injectable medication for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). More than half were male (64.4%), white (53.3%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (55.6%); and about one-fourth of the participants (27.8%) also had psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

The gain-framed message emphasized “the chance to reduce psoriasis severity, reduce joint pain, and improve how you feel overall,” while the loss-framed message described the downsides of not taking medication – missing out “on the chance to improve your skin, your joints, and your overall health,” with the possibility that psoriasis may get worse, “with worsening pain in your joints from psoriatic arthritis,” and feeling “worse overall.” Both messages included the side effects of the theoretical injectable, a small risk of injection-site pain and skin infections. After receiving the message, participants ranked their likelihood of taking the medication on an 11-point Likert scale, with a score of 0 indicating that they would “definitely” not use the medication and a score of 10 indicating that they would “definitely” use the medication.

Scores among those who received the loss-framed message were a mean of 8.84, compared with 7.11 among patients who received the gain-framed message (between-group difference; 1.73; P less than .0001). When comparing patients with and without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.90 for patients with PsA (P less than .0001) and 1.08 for patients who did not have PsA (P = .002). Comparing the responses of those with PsA and those without PsA, the between-group difference was 1.08 (P = .03). While PsA and non-PsA patients favored the loss-framed messages, “regardless of the framing type, PsA patients always responded with a greater preference for the therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said.

Gender also had an effect on responsiveness to gain-framed or loss-framed messaging. Both men and women ranked the loss-framed messaging as making them more likely to use the medication, but the between-group difference for women (2.00; P = .008) was higher than in men (1.49; P = .003). However, the total men compared with total women between-group differences were not significant.

“In clinical practice, physicians regularly weigh the benefits and risks of treatment. In order to communicate this information to patients, it is important to understand how framing these benefits and risks impacts patient preferences for therapy,” Mr. Kassardjian said. “While most available biologics are effective and have tolerable safety profiles, many psoriasis patients may be hesitant to initiate these therapies. Thus, it is important to convey the benefits and risks of these systemic agents in ways that resonate with patients.”

Mr. Kassardjian reports receiving the Dean’s Research Scholarship at the University of Southern California, funded by the Wright Foundation at the time of the study. Senior author April Armstrong, MD, disclosed serving as an investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Modernizing Medicine, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB.

SOURCE: Kassardjian A. SID 2020, Abstract 489.

Psoriasis patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their clinicians than did those without mental health comorbidities, according to a retrospective analysis of survey data.

The findings highlight the importance of clinicians being supportive and adaptable in their communication style when interacting with psoriasis patients with mental illness.

“This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters,” wrote Charlotte Read, MBBS, of Imperial College London, and April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from over 8.8 million U.S. adults (unweighted, 652) with psoriasis who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 to 2017. The nationally representative database includes various clinical information, such as data on patient demographics, health care use, and mental health comorbidities.

The primary outcome, patient satisfaction with their physician, was assessed using a patient-physician communication composite score. Mental health comorbidities were evaluated using standard questionnaires.

The mean age of study patients was 52.1 years (range, 0.7 years), and most were female (54%). In all, 73% of participants had no or mild psychological distress symptoms, and 27% had moderate or severe symptoms.

After analysis, the researchers found that patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physician than were those with no or mild symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; P = .001). They also reported that patients with severe symptoms were more likely to report lower satisfaction (aOR, 2.3; P = .03).

“Patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians, compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms,” they further explained.

Based on the results, the coinvestigators emphasized the importance of bettering the patient experience for those with mental illness given the potential association with improved health outcomes.

“Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style,” they recommended.

The authors acknowledged the inadequacy of evaluating clinician performance using patient satisfaction alone. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all clinical settings.

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong reported financial affiliations with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Read C, Armstrong AW. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054.

Psoriasis patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their clinicians than did those without mental health comorbidities, according to a retrospective analysis of survey data.

The findings highlight the importance of clinicians being supportive and adaptable in their communication style when interacting with psoriasis patients with mental illness.

“This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters,” wrote Charlotte Read, MBBS, of Imperial College London, and April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from over 8.8 million U.S. adults (unweighted, 652) with psoriasis who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 to 2017. The nationally representative database includes various clinical information, such as data on patient demographics, health care use, and mental health comorbidities.

The primary outcome, patient satisfaction with their physician, was assessed using a patient-physician communication composite score. Mental health comorbidities were evaluated using standard questionnaires.

The mean age of study patients was 52.1 years (range, 0.7 years), and most were female (54%). In all, 73% of participants had no or mild psychological distress symptoms, and 27% had moderate or severe symptoms.

After analysis, the researchers found that patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physician than were those with no or mild symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; P = .001). They also reported that patients with severe symptoms were more likely to report lower satisfaction (aOR, 2.3; P = .03).

“Patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians, compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms,” they further explained.

Based on the results, the coinvestigators emphasized the importance of bettering the patient experience for those with mental illness given the potential association with improved health outcomes.

“Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style,” they recommended.

The authors acknowledged the inadequacy of evaluating clinician performance using patient satisfaction alone. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all clinical settings.

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong reported financial affiliations with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Read C, Armstrong AW. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054.

Psoriasis patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their clinicians than did those without mental health comorbidities, according to a retrospective analysis of survey data.

The findings highlight the importance of clinicians being supportive and adaptable in their communication style when interacting with psoriasis patients with mental illness.

“This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters,” wrote Charlotte Read, MBBS, of Imperial College London, and April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in JAMA Dermatology.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed longitudinal data from over 8.8 million U.S. adults (unweighted, 652) with psoriasis who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2004 to 2017. The nationally representative database includes various clinical information, such as data on patient demographics, health care use, and mental health comorbidities.

The primary outcome, patient satisfaction with their physician, was assessed using a patient-physician communication composite score. Mental health comorbidities were evaluated using standard questionnaires.

The mean age of study patients was 52.1 years (range, 0.7 years), and most were female (54%). In all, 73% of participants had no or mild psychological distress symptoms, and 27% had moderate or severe symptoms.

After analysis, the researchers found that patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physician than were those with no or mild symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; P = .001). They also reported that patients with severe symptoms were more likely to report lower satisfaction (aOR, 2.3; P = .03).

“Patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians, compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms,” they further explained.

Based on the results, the coinvestigators emphasized the importance of bettering the patient experience for those with mental illness given the potential association with improved health outcomes.

“Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style,” they recommended.

The authors acknowledged the inadequacy of evaluating clinician performance using patient satisfaction alone. As a result, the findings may not be generalizable to all clinical settings.

The study was funded by the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr. Armstrong reported financial affiliations with several pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Read C, Armstrong AW. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

Use of biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors was not associated with worse outcomes in 86 people with inflammatory diseases who contracted COVID-19, according to a case series from New York University Langone Health.

“We are not seeing worse outcomes with overall use of either. It’s reassuring” that the data support continued use during the pandemic, said rheumatologist and senior investigator Jose Scher, MD, an associate professor at New York University.

There have been concerns among rheumatologists, gastroenterologists, and dermatologists that underlying inflammatory diseases and the agents used to treat them would impact outcomes in COVID-19.

Dr. Scher and colleagues, including lead author and rheumatologist Rebecca Haberman, MD, wanted to address the issue, so they reviewed the experience in their own health system of patients with inflammatory diseases – most commonly psoriatic arthritis, RA, and Crohn’s disease – who were assessed for COVID-19 from March 3 to April 3.

Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common symptoms. The infection was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction in 59 (69%) and highly suspected in 27.

A total of 62 patients (72%) were on JAK inhibitors or biologics at baseline, including 38 (44%) on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

Overall, 14 patients (16%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, which is consistent the 26% hospitalization rate among the general population in New York City.

Baseline biologic and JAK inhibitor use was actually lower among hospitalized patients than among those who weren’t hospitalized (50% vs. 76%), and the hospitalization rate was only 11% among 62 subjects who had been on the agents long term, more than a year among most.

Hospitalized patients tended to be slightly older (mean, 50 vs. 46 years) with a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had a higher prevalence of RA (43% vs. 19%), methotrexate use (43% vs. 15%), and use of hydroxychloroquine (21% vs. 7%) and oral glucocorticoids (29% vs. 6%).

It’s unknown what to make of those findings for now, Dr. Scher said. The study didn’t address differences in the severity of the underlying inflammatory illness, but a new and significantly larger case series is in the works that will analyze that and other potential confounders.

Dr. Scher noted that he’s particularly interested in drilling down further on the higher prevalence of RA and methotrexate in hospitalized patients. “We want to understand those signals better. All of this needs further validation,” he said.

Of the 14 hospitalized patients, 11 (79%) were discharged after a mean of 5.6 days. One died in the ED, and two remained hospitalized as of April 3, including one in the ICU.

The investigators are contributing to COVID-19 registries for inflammatory disease patients. The registries are tending to report higher hospitalization rates, but Dr. Scher noted they might be biased towards more severe cases, among other issues.

As for the current situation in New York City, he said that the “last week in March and first 3 in April were indescribable in terms of admissions, intubations, and deaths. Over the last week or so, it has calmed down significantly.”

There was no external funding. Dr. Haberman reported ties to Janssen, and Dr. Scher reported ties to Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and other companies.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Haberman R et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2009567.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

An international registry of adult and pediatric rheumatology patients is beginning to identify trends in the types of patients with COVID-19 and who is recovering.

The COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA) has created pediatric and adult registries for health care providers to enter information on their rheumatology patients with COVID-19. The adult registry is hosted by the University of California, San Francisco, Research Electronic Data Capture system, while the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance is supporting the pediatric registry. A separate path for data entry of both adult and pediatric cases has been established through the European League Against Rheumatism for European countries and countries with EULAR member organizations.

Prior to the creation of the registries, there were no data available to guide rheumatologists in clinical decision making for their patients, noted Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, COVID-19 GRA steering committee member and chief of the division of rheumatology at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. “COVID-19 has potential to severely affect those with rheumatologic diseases or those taking immunosuppressive drugs,” she said in an interview. “The GRA registries were designed to answer critical questions that will inform the medical care of this population.”

The GRA began on Twitter, with conversations between Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, of the Cleveland Clinic; Paul Sufka, MD, of HealthPartners in St. Paul, Minn.; Philip Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the Royal Brisbane (Australia) Hospital; and herself, Dr. Yazdany said. Dr. Robinson started work on the governance of the GRA, Dr. Yazdany designed the data infrastructure, and Dr. Sufka approached his professional networks and social media followings to promote the effort and ask for support. The COVID-19 GRA steering committee representatives include patients, private practice rheumatologists, and international investigators. Listed among official supporters of the alliance are the American College of Rheumatology and EULAR along with more than 290 medical societies, institutions, journals, and other organizations in rheumatology.

The goal of the registries is to examine the health outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 based on sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, and clinical presentations of COVID-19 as well as what role taking immunosuppressive drugs prior to a COVID-19 infection play in helping or hindering outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine, used to treat lupus and arthritis, is a potential treatment candidate for COVID-19. Biologics such as tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), which target interleukin-6, and anakinra (Kineret), which targets IL-1, are treatment candidates for patients who have experienced COVID-related cytokine storm syndrome, which researchers believe may contribute to worsening or fatal cases.

Dr. Yazdany, who is also vice chair of real-world data infrastructure, registry, and institutional review board/ethics for the GRA, said that there are some important high-level trends in the data thus far. “People with lupus and those taking hydroxychloroquine are becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, which is counter to misinformation on social media. Most people with rheumatic diseases on immunosuppression are recovering, which is great news for our patients.”

One of the major strengths of the registries is that each case is entered by the rheumatologist treating the patient and contains detailed clinical information, Dr. Yazdany said. However, the registry has no control group, it is not a population surveillance study, and it may contain selection bias through rheumatologists omitting milder, undiagnosed cases.

“The Global Alliance case reporting registry represents the collective effort of hundreds of rheumatologists across the world. I have never been more inspired by the strength and collaboration of the rheumatology community,” Dr. Yazdany said.

According to a paper published in the Lancet Rheumatology, which references data on 110 cases from the combined databases up to April 1, about three-fourths of cases presented with fever (79%) and cough (77%), and about half presented with shortness of breath (50%) and myalgia (45%).
 

Results from the global and UCSF registries

As of April 18, 334 cases were in the global and UCSF registries, with 121 patients (36%) in the database having both COVID-19 and RA, 33 patients (10%) with psoriatic arthritis, 58 patients (17%) with systemic lupus erythematosus, 28 patients (8%) with axial spondyloarthritis, 27 patients (8%) with vasculitis, and 19 patients (6%) with Sjögren’s syndrome. There were less than five cases reported for patients with the following rheumatic diseases: inflammatory myopathy, ocular inflammation, other inflammatory arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, sarcoidosis, systemic sclerosis, osteoporosis, psoriasis, isolated pulmonary capillaritis, gout, and autoinflammatory disease. A majority of the patients in the registries are women (74%) aged younger than 65 years (78%) and are white (52%).

The most common comorbid conditions among patients in the registry are hypertension (33%), lung disease (18%), diabetes (11%), cardiovascular disease (10%), chronic renal insufficiency or end-stage renal disease (7%), morbid obesity (7%), and cancer (4%). Before being diagnosed with COVID-19, 219 patients (66%) in the registry were taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), which included antimalarials, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, leflunomide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolic acid, sulfasalazine, and tacrolimus. A total of 122 patients (37%) were taking biologic DMARDs, 101 patients were taking glucocorticoids (30%), 86 patients (26%) were taking hydroxychloroquine, 41 patients (12%) were taking NSAIDs, and 18 patients (5%) were taking a Janus kinase inhibitor.

The most recent data from the registry show that 128 patients (38%) have been hospitalized for COVID-19, and 19 patients (6%) have died. Although 104 patients (31%) resolved their infections, 177 patients (53%) have a COVID-19 infection status of “unresolved,” and 53 patients (16%) have an unknown infection status.
 

EULAR registry results

As of April 21, 249 cases were in the EULAR registry, including 110 hospitalizations (44%) and 37 deaths (15%). Overall, 64% of these patients were women, and they had a median age of 60 years.

The top five diagnoses of these patients were RA (39%), psoriatic arthritis (15%), spondyloarthritis (9%), systemic lupus erythematosus (9%), and gout (5%). A total of 27% had no reported comorbidities, while lung disease occurred in 26%, hypertension in 34%, diabetes in 11%, and cardiovascular disease on 11%. The registry also reported use of any DMARD in 80%, including 62% on csDMARDs, 31% on biologics, and 2% on targeted synthetic DMARDs.

Ten authors in the Lancet Rheumatology paper reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, corporate sponsorships, advisory board memberships, investigator appointments, speaker’s bureau positions, personal fees, and consultancies for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

The adoption of the infused biosimilar infliximab therapies Inflectra and Renflexis was slower at an academic medical center than at a neighboring Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.

Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
 

An examination of pharmacy data

The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.

The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).

Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
 

VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost

The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.

Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.

In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.

Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...

“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”

The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”

European governments incentivize use of biosimilars

Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.

In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.

Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.

The adoption of the infused biosimilar infliximab therapies Inflectra and Renflexis was slower at an academic medical center than at a neighboring Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.

Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
 

An examination of pharmacy data

The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.

The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).

Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
 

VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost

The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.

Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.

In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.

Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...

“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”

The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”

European governments incentivize use of biosimilars

Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.

In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.

Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.

The adoption of the infused biosimilar infliximab therapies Inflectra and Renflexis was slower at an academic medical center than at a neighboring Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.

Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
 

An examination of pharmacy data

The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.

The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).

Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
 

VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost

The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.

Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.

In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.

Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...

“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”

The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”

European governments incentivize use of biosimilars

Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.

In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.

Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.

In the clinical opinion of Kaiane A. Habeshian, MD, dermatologists shouldn’t think twice about using systemic agents in pediatric patients with severe dermatologic diseases.

“By the time patients come to us pediatric dermatologists, they have been treated by multiple other doctors, and are frustrated,” Dr. Habeshian said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “Childhood eczema affects not only patients, but the whole family. For instance, if the child is not sleeping due to itch, their parents are probably not sleeping, either. Parental well-being and workplace productivity are affected, and finances are affected.”

Only a limited number of medications are Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatric patients for common dermatologic indications. These include dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD), etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis, adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, and omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria. “The approvals are mainly for the adolescent age group, except for etanercept, which is approved at the age of 4 years and above,” said Dr. Habeshian of the department of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington.

In clinical practice, off-label, nontargeted systemic agents are used mostly commonly in pediatric skin disease, particularly methotrexate and cyclosporine for both AD and psoriasis. “These agents are approved for other indications in infants and have many years of data to describe their use in these other conditions, although comprehensive randomized, controlled studies in pediatric patients for dermatologic conditions are lacking,” she said. “What’s in clinical trials for pediatric skin disease? There are multiple ongoing clinical studies of biologic agents in pediatric dermatology, mainly for psoriasis and also for dupilumab in younger patients, as well as a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor for alopecia areata.”

Dr. Habeshian noted that while some clinicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to go straight to dupilumab, which was approved in March of 2019 for adolescents with moderate to severe AD, that agent is not currently approved for the most sizable pediatric population with this condition – those under 12 years of age. “FDA approval is important in part because it helps establish safety and optimal dosing, which is often different and weight based in children,” she said. “In addition, FDA approval significantly impacts access to these newer, more expensive medications.”

Speaking from her experience treating patients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, Medicaid has consistently denied dupilumab coverage in children under age 12, “even in severe eczema that is suboptimally controlled with both methotrexate and cyclosporine, despite multiple levels of appeal, including letters of medical necessity and peer-to-peer evaluation,” she said. “This can vary across the country among states. However, dupilumab has been completely unattainable in those under 12 in our practice.”

When dupilumab is approved, most insurers first require step therapy with off-label agents for at least 3 months, as well as documented failure of topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if done). “It’s important to document an objective measure of severity at the very first visit with the SCORAD [scoring atopic dermatitis] or IGA [investigator global assessment],” she said. “Often, that is required if there is any hope for coverage. A familiarity with these requirements is often acquired through trial and error, and may change over time. This can lead to many delays in getting patients these treatments.” Additional information to consider documenting include the disease impact on quality of life, sleep, and school attendance, any hospitalizations for AD flares or secondary infections, and comorbid disease such as asthma.

Meanwhile, dupilumab is under priority review for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe AD, with a target action date of May 26, 2020. “It’s unclear how recent events [with the COVID-19 pandemic] will impact that, but there is something to look forward to, and give us hope for our patients,” she said.

Typically, Dr. Habeshian starts her pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD on methotrexate, which she characterized as “a time-tested, affordable, and very accessible option. It requires a little bit less monitoring upon initiation than cyclosporine, and it can be used for longer periods of time before weaning is required.”

In cases when disease is severe or intolerable, she often starts methotrexate and cyclosporine together. “I will usually start right at the 0.5 mg/kg per week rather than titrating up, because this maximizes the response and reduces the amount of blood work needed, unless they have an underlying risk factor for GI distress, or obese patients who are at increased risk for LFT [liver function test] elevation,” she noted. “Patients will note some improvement as early as 2 weeks on methotrexate, but I counsel them to expect 4-6 weeks for maximum improvement. We do not do a test dose of methotrexate at our institution. If there is a slight LFT elevation upon checking labs, ensure that the labs were done at least 4-6 days after the dose, because transient LFT dose elevations are common in 3-4 days.”

GI distress is by far the most common clinical side effect of methotrexate. “We do not do much intramuscular injection of methotrexate, so we rely a lot on folic acid, which reduces the risk of GI distress and elevated LFTs without reducing efficacy,” she said. “We recommend daily folic acid for simplicity, or folic acid 6 days per week.”

Dr. Habeshian said that many pediatric patients can swallow the 2.5 mg tablets of methotrexate “because they’re quite small, and most patients don’t have a problem taking the methotrexate when it’s crushed and mixed with food such as apple sauce or pudding. However, it is critical to discuss proper handling to avoid lung toxicity.” This includes placing the pills in a plastic bag prior to crushing, avoiding inhalation, and avoiding handling near pregnant women and pets, she noted. In addition, she said, “in adolescents, we need to consider the teratogenicity of methotrexate, as well as the possibility of alcohol consumption worsening liver complications. If I prescribe methotrexate in patients of childbearing age, I will counsel them extensively regarding the risk of fetal death and birth defects. If needed, I will start combined oral contraceptives. Ultimately, I’m willing to use these medicines safely, with significant counseling.”

When addressing the risk of methotrexate overdose, she reminds parents to store the medication in a safe place, out of the reach of children. “Patients are at the highest risk of overdose complications if they are given the medication multiple days in a row rather than a one-time, single high dose,” she said. “The literature suggests that one-time overdoses of methotrexate – deliberate or accidental – are unlikely to cause acute bone marrow suppression or hepatitis. This is probably because GI absorption of methotrexate reaches a saturation point, and the kidneys passively and actively excrete the medication at quite a rapid pace so that the methotrexate is often undetectable in the blood at 24 hours post ingestion. I do prescribe a limited supply to help prevent accidental overdoses. In part, this is because if the patient is receiving the medication daily, they’ll run out very quickly, and it will come the family’s attention and to your attention that it’s not being administered correctly.”

Another treatment option to consider for cases of moderate to severe AD is cyclosporine, “which works extremely quickly,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is very good to rapidly control severe disease while methotrexate or other modes of treatment kick in. It’s best used as a bridge, given the risks of renal damage with long-term use. I like to limit its use to 6 months.”

Cyclosporine comes in two formulations: a modified oral formulation and a nonmodified oral formulation. The modified formulation is absorbed much better than the unmodified formulation. “We start at 5 mg/kg divided b.i.d., which is higher than the recommended dosing for dermatologic conditions in adults,” she said. “This is because children may not absorb the medication as well and may have improved renal clearance. Higher doses may be needed to achieve the desirable effect. In contrast to methotrexate, cyclosporine is available in a capsule, so it cannot be crushed.”

The choice of medication for psoriasis is generally guided by insurance step therapy requirements and is limited in the pediatric population (new guidelines on the care of pediatric psoriasis patients can be found at J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82[1]:161-201). In Dr. Habeshian’s experience, methotrexate is the go-to for most patients. “It treats concomitant psoriatic arthritis and can be used as monotherapy or combined with biologics,” she said. “Cyclosporine is useful for erythrodermic, pustular, and severe plaque psoriasis as a bridge. Other options include etanercept weekly in patients age 4-17 years and ustekinumab weekly dosing in patients age 12-17 years.”

Acitretin can be a useful adjunct for younger patients who are unable to obtain biologic agents. “It is most useful in widespread guttate and pustular psoriasis, but can be used be used in plaque psoriasis as well,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is usually dosed as 0.1-1 mg/kg per day. Improvement in plaque disease is generally seen in 2-3 months of therapy, so it has a slow onset, whereas improvement in pustular psoriasis is seen within 3 weeks.” The most common side effects are dry skin and mucous membranes, while an important consideration is the potential for inducing premature bone toxicity. “It is thought that the risk is relatively low if the daily and total doses are kept low,” she said. “There is no consensus for monitoring bone health. Some clinicians will consider radiography periodically.”

Dr. Habeshian concluded her talk by noting that clinicians should give vaccinations/boosters before starting systemic therapy in young children. “The safety and efficacy of live immunization administered to children on biologics is not known,” she said. “Therefore, if live vaccination is needed, it’s generally recommended to postpone initiating biologic treatment.” The MMR and varicella vaccines are given at 12-15 months of life, with a booster at 4-6 years. The varicella vaccine should be given at least 6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and the MMR vaccine at least 4 weeks before starting therapy.

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Habeshian reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the clinical opinion of Kaiane A. Habeshian, MD, dermatologists shouldn’t think twice about using systemic agents in pediatric patients with severe dermatologic diseases.

“By the time patients come to us pediatric dermatologists, they have been treated by multiple other doctors, and are frustrated,” Dr. Habeshian said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “Childhood eczema affects not only patients, but the whole family. For instance, if the child is not sleeping due to itch, their parents are probably not sleeping, either. Parental well-being and workplace productivity are affected, and finances are affected.”

Only a limited number of medications are Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatric patients for common dermatologic indications. These include dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD), etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis, adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, and omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria. “The approvals are mainly for the adolescent age group, except for etanercept, which is approved at the age of 4 years and above,” said Dr. Habeshian of the department of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington.

In clinical practice, off-label, nontargeted systemic agents are used mostly commonly in pediatric skin disease, particularly methotrexate and cyclosporine for both AD and psoriasis. “These agents are approved for other indications in infants and have many years of data to describe their use in these other conditions, although comprehensive randomized, controlled studies in pediatric patients for dermatologic conditions are lacking,” she said. “What’s in clinical trials for pediatric skin disease? There are multiple ongoing clinical studies of biologic agents in pediatric dermatology, mainly for psoriasis and also for dupilumab in younger patients, as well as a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor for alopecia areata.”

Dr. Habeshian noted that while some clinicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to go straight to dupilumab, which was approved in March of 2019 for adolescents with moderate to severe AD, that agent is not currently approved for the most sizable pediatric population with this condition – those under 12 years of age. “FDA approval is important in part because it helps establish safety and optimal dosing, which is often different and weight based in children,” she said. “In addition, FDA approval significantly impacts access to these newer, more expensive medications.”

Speaking from her experience treating patients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, Medicaid has consistently denied dupilumab coverage in children under age 12, “even in severe eczema that is suboptimally controlled with both methotrexate and cyclosporine, despite multiple levels of appeal, including letters of medical necessity and peer-to-peer evaluation,” she said. “This can vary across the country among states. However, dupilumab has been completely unattainable in those under 12 in our practice.”

When dupilumab is approved, most insurers first require step therapy with off-label agents for at least 3 months, as well as documented failure of topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if done). “It’s important to document an objective measure of severity at the very first visit with the SCORAD [scoring atopic dermatitis] or IGA [investigator global assessment],” she said. “Often, that is required if there is any hope for coverage. A familiarity with these requirements is often acquired through trial and error, and may change over time. This can lead to many delays in getting patients these treatments.” Additional information to consider documenting include the disease impact on quality of life, sleep, and school attendance, any hospitalizations for AD flares or secondary infections, and comorbid disease such as asthma.

Meanwhile, dupilumab is under priority review for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe AD, with a target action date of May 26, 2020. “It’s unclear how recent events [with the COVID-19 pandemic] will impact that, but there is something to look forward to, and give us hope for our patients,” she said.

Typically, Dr. Habeshian starts her pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD on methotrexate, which she characterized as “a time-tested, affordable, and very accessible option. It requires a little bit less monitoring upon initiation than cyclosporine, and it can be used for longer periods of time before weaning is required.”

In cases when disease is severe or intolerable, she often starts methotrexate and cyclosporine together. “I will usually start right at the 0.5 mg/kg per week rather than titrating up, because this maximizes the response and reduces the amount of blood work needed, unless they have an underlying risk factor for GI distress, or obese patients who are at increased risk for LFT [liver function test] elevation,” she noted. “Patients will note some improvement as early as 2 weeks on methotrexate, but I counsel them to expect 4-6 weeks for maximum improvement. We do not do a test dose of methotrexate at our institution. If there is a slight LFT elevation upon checking labs, ensure that the labs were done at least 4-6 days after the dose, because transient LFT dose elevations are common in 3-4 days.”

GI distress is by far the most common clinical side effect of methotrexate. “We do not do much intramuscular injection of methotrexate, so we rely a lot on folic acid, which reduces the risk of GI distress and elevated LFTs without reducing efficacy,” she said. “We recommend daily folic acid for simplicity, or folic acid 6 days per week.”

Dr. Habeshian said that many pediatric patients can swallow the 2.5 mg tablets of methotrexate “because they’re quite small, and most patients don’t have a problem taking the methotrexate when it’s crushed and mixed with food such as apple sauce or pudding. However, it is critical to discuss proper handling to avoid lung toxicity.” This includes placing the pills in a plastic bag prior to crushing, avoiding inhalation, and avoiding handling near pregnant women and pets, she noted. In addition, she said, “in adolescents, we need to consider the teratogenicity of methotrexate, as well as the possibility of alcohol consumption worsening liver complications. If I prescribe methotrexate in patients of childbearing age, I will counsel them extensively regarding the risk of fetal death and birth defects. If needed, I will start combined oral contraceptives. Ultimately, I’m willing to use these medicines safely, with significant counseling.”

When addressing the risk of methotrexate overdose, she reminds parents to store the medication in a safe place, out of the reach of children. “Patients are at the highest risk of overdose complications if they are given the medication multiple days in a row rather than a one-time, single high dose,” she said. “The literature suggests that one-time overdoses of methotrexate – deliberate or accidental – are unlikely to cause acute bone marrow suppression or hepatitis. This is probably because GI absorption of methotrexate reaches a saturation point, and the kidneys passively and actively excrete the medication at quite a rapid pace so that the methotrexate is often undetectable in the blood at 24 hours post ingestion. I do prescribe a limited supply to help prevent accidental overdoses. In part, this is because if the patient is receiving the medication daily, they’ll run out very quickly, and it will come the family’s attention and to your attention that it’s not being administered correctly.”

Another treatment option to consider for cases of moderate to severe AD is cyclosporine, “which works extremely quickly,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is very good to rapidly control severe disease while methotrexate or other modes of treatment kick in. It’s best used as a bridge, given the risks of renal damage with long-term use. I like to limit its use to 6 months.”

Cyclosporine comes in two formulations: a modified oral formulation and a nonmodified oral formulation. The modified formulation is absorbed much better than the unmodified formulation. “We start at 5 mg/kg divided b.i.d., which is higher than the recommended dosing for dermatologic conditions in adults,” she said. “This is because children may not absorb the medication as well and may have improved renal clearance. Higher doses may be needed to achieve the desirable effect. In contrast to methotrexate, cyclosporine is available in a capsule, so it cannot be crushed.”

The choice of medication for psoriasis is generally guided by insurance step therapy requirements and is limited in the pediatric population (new guidelines on the care of pediatric psoriasis patients can be found at J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82[1]:161-201). In Dr. Habeshian’s experience, methotrexate is the go-to for most patients. “It treats concomitant psoriatic arthritis and can be used as monotherapy or combined with biologics,” she said. “Cyclosporine is useful for erythrodermic, pustular, and severe plaque psoriasis as a bridge. Other options include etanercept weekly in patients age 4-17 years and ustekinumab weekly dosing in patients age 12-17 years.”

Acitretin can be a useful adjunct for younger patients who are unable to obtain biologic agents. “It is most useful in widespread guttate and pustular psoriasis, but can be used be used in plaque psoriasis as well,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is usually dosed as 0.1-1 mg/kg per day. Improvement in plaque disease is generally seen in 2-3 months of therapy, so it has a slow onset, whereas improvement in pustular psoriasis is seen within 3 weeks.” The most common side effects are dry skin and mucous membranes, while an important consideration is the potential for inducing premature bone toxicity. “It is thought that the risk is relatively low if the daily and total doses are kept low,” she said. “There is no consensus for monitoring bone health. Some clinicians will consider radiography periodically.”

Dr. Habeshian concluded her talk by noting that clinicians should give vaccinations/boosters before starting systemic therapy in young children. “The safety and efficacy of live immunization administered to children on biologics is not known,” she said. “Therefore, if live vaccination is needed, it’s generally recommended to postpone initiating biologic treatment.” The MMR and varicella vaccines are given at 12-15 months of life, with a booster at 4-6 years. The varicella vaccine should be given at least 6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and the MMR vaccine at least 4 weeks before starting therapy.

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Habeshian reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In the clinical opinion of Kaiane A. Habeshian, MD, dermatologists shouldn’t think twice about using systemic agents in pediatric patients with severe dermatologic diseases.

“By the time patients come to us pediatric dermatologists, they have been treated by multiple other doctors, and are frustrated,” Dr. Habeshian said during a virtual meeting held by the George Washington University department of dermatology. “Childhood eczema affects not only patients, but the whole family. For instance, if the child is not sleeping due to itch, their parents are probably not sleeping, either. Parental well-being and workplace productivity are affected, and finances are affected.”

Only a limited number of medications are Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatric patients for common dermatologic indications. These include dupilumab for atopic dermatitis (AD), etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis, adalimumab for hidradenitis suppurativa, and omalizumab for chronic idiopathic urticaria. “The approvals are mainly for the adolescent age group, except for etanercept, which is approved at the age of 4 years and above,” said Dr. Habeshian of the department of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital, Washington.

In clinical practice, off-label, nontargeted systemic agents are used mostly commonly in pediatric skin disease, particularly methotrexate and cyclosporine for both AD and psoriasis. “These agents are approved for other indications in infants and have many years of data to describe their use in these other conditions, although comprehensive randomized, controlled studies in pediatric patients for dermatologic conditions are lacking,” she said. “What’s in clinical trials for pediatric skin disease? There are multiple ongoing clinical studies of biologic agents in pediatric dermatology, mainly for psoriasis and also for dupilumab in younger patients, as well as a JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor for alopecia areata.”

Dr. Habeshian noted that while some clinicians may have a knee-jerk reaction to go straight to dupilumab, which was approved in March of 2019 for adolescents with moderate to severe AD, that agent is not currently approved for the most sizable pediatric population with this condition – those under 12 years of age. “FDA approval is important in part because it helps establish safety and optimal dosing, which is often different and weight based in children,” she said. “In addition, FDA approval significantly impacts access to these newer, more expensive medications.”

Speaking from her experience treating patients in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, Medicaid has consistently denied dupilumab coverage in children under age 12, “even in severe eczema that is suboptimally controlled with both methotrexate and cyclosporine, despite multiple levels of appeal, including letters of medical necessity and peer-to-peer evaluation,” she said. “This can vary across the country among states. However, dupilumab has been completely unattainable in those under 12 in our practice.”

When dupilumab is approved, most insurers first require step therapy with off-label agents for at least 3 months, as well as documented failure of topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if done). “It’s important to document an objective measure of severity at the very first visit with the SCORAD [scoring atopic dermatitis] or IGA [investigator global assessment],” she said. “Often, that is required if there is any hope for coverage. A familiarity with these requirements is often acquired through trial and error, and may change over time. This can lead to many delays in getting patients these treatments.” Additional information to consider documenting include the disease impact on quality of life, sleep, and school attendance, any hospitalizations for AD flares or secondary infections, and comorbid disease such as asthma.

Meanwhile, dupilumab is under priority review for children aged 6-11 years with moderate to severe AD, with a target action date of May 26, 2020. “It’s unclear how recent events [with the COVID-19 pandemic] will impact that, but there is something to look forward to, and give us hope for our patients,” she said.

Typically, Dr. Habeshian starts her pediatric patients with moderate to severe AD on methotrexate, which she characterized as “a time-tested, affordable, and very accessible option. It requires a little bit less monitoring upon initiation than cyclosporine, and it can be used for longer periods of time before weaning is required.”

In cases when disease is severe or intolerable, she often starts methotrexate and cyclosporine together. “I will usually start right at the 0.5 mg/kg per week rather than titrating up, because this maximizes the response and reduces the amount of blood work needed, unless they have an underlying risk factor for GI distress, or obese patients who are at increased risk for LFT [liver function test] elevation,” she noted. “Patients will note some improvement as early as 2 weeks on methotrexate, but I counsel them to expect 4-6 weeks for maximum improvement. We do not do a test dose of methotrexate at our institution. If there is a slight LFT elevation upon checking labs, ensure that the labs were done at least 4-6 days after the dose, because transient LFT dose elevations are common in 3-4 days.”

GI distress is by far the most common clinical side effect of methotrexate. “We do not do much intramuscular injection of methotrexate, so we rely a lot on folic acid, which reduces the risk of GI distress and elevated LFTs without reducing efficacy,” she said. “We recommend daily folic acid for simplicity, or folic acid 6 days per week.”

Dr. Habeshian said that many pediatric patients can swallow the 2.5 mg tablets of methotrexate “because they’re quite small, and most patients don’t have a problem taking the methotrexate when it’s crushed and mixed with food such as apple sauce or pudding. However, it is critical to discuss proper handling to avoid lung toxicity.” This includes placing the pills in a plastic bag prior to crushing, avoiding inhalation, and avoiding handling near pregnant women and pets, she noted. In addition, she said, “in adolescents, we need to consider the teratogenicity of methotrexate, as well as the possibility of alcohol consumption worsening liver complications. If I prescribe methotrexate in patients of childbearing age, I will counsel them extensively regarding the risk of fetal death and birth defects. If needed, I will start combined oral contraceptives. Ultimately, I’m willing to use these medicines safely, with significant counseling.”

When addressing the risk of methotrexate overdose, she reminds parents to store the medication in a safe place, out of the reach of children. “Patients are at the highest risk of overdose complications if they are given the medication multiple days in a row rather than a one-time, single high dose,” she said. “The literature suggests that one-time overdoses of methotrexate – deliberate or accidental – are unlikely to cause acute bone marrow suppression or hepatitis. This is probably because GI absorption of methotrexate reaches a saturation point, and the kidneys passively and actively excrete the medication at quite a rapid pace so that the methotrexate is often undetectable in the blood at 24 hours post ingestion. I do prescribe a limited supply to help prevent accidental overdoses. In part, this is because if the patient is receiving the medication daily, they’ll run out very quickly, and it will come the family’s attention and to your attention that it’s not being administered correctly.”

Another treatment option to consider for cases of moderate to severe AD is cyclosporine, “which works extremely quickly,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is very good to rapidly control severe disease while methotrexate or other modes of treatment kick in. It’s best used as a bridge, given the risks of renal damage with long-term use. I like to limit its use to 6 months.”

Cyclosporine comes in two formulations: a modified oral formulation and a nonmodified oral formulation. The modified formulation is absorbed much better than the unmodified formulation. “We start at 5 mg/kg divided b.i.d., which is higher than the recommended dosing for dermatologic conditions in adults,” she said. “This is because children may not absorb the medication as well and may have improved renal clearance. Higher doses may be needed to achieve the desirable effect. In contrast to methotrexate, cyclosporine is available in a capsule, so it cannot be crushed.”

The choice of medication for psoriasis is generally guided by insurance step therapy requirements and is limited in the pediatric population (new guidelines on the care of pediatric psoriasis patients can be found at J Am Acad Dermatol 2020; 82[1]:161-201). In Dr. Habeshian’s experience, methotrexate is the go-to for most patients. “It treats concomitant psoriatic arthritis and can be used as monotherapy or combined with biologics,” she said. “Cyclosporine is useful for erythrodermic, pustular, and severe plaque psoriasis as a bridge. Other options include etanercept weekly in patients age 4-17 years and ustekinumab weekly dosing in patients age 12-17 years.”

Acitretin can be a useful adjunct for younger patients who are unable to obtain biologic agents. “It is most useful in widespread guttate and pustular psoriasis, but can be used be used in plaque psoriasis as well,” Dr. Habeshian said. “It is usually dosed as 0.1-1 mg/kg per day. Improvement in plaque disease is generally seen in 2-3 months of therapy, so it has a slow onset, whereas improvement in pustular psoriasis is seen within 3 weeks.” The most common side effects are dry skin and mucous membranes, while an important consideration is the potential for inducing premature bone toxicity. “It is thought that the risk is relatively low if the daily and total doses are kept low,” she said. “There is no consensus for monitoring bone health. Some clinicians will consider radiography periodically.”

Dr. Habeshian concluded her talk by noting that clinicians should give vaccinations/boosters before starting systemic therapy in young children. “The safety and efficacy of live immunization administered to children on biologics is not known,” she said. “Therefore, if live vaccination is needed, it’s generally recommended to postpone initiating biologic treatment.” The MMR and varicella vaccines are given at 12-15 months of life, with a booster at 4-6 years. The varicella vaccine should be given at least 6 weeks before starting immunosuppressive therapy, and the MMR vaccine at least 4 weeks before starting therapy.

The virtual meeting included presentations that had been slated for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, which was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Habeshian reported having no disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.

“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”

In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”

He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”

Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.

Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.

“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”

In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”

He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”

Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.

Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.

“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”

In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”

He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”

Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.

Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.

The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).

Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.

Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.

“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).

“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.

Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.

“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”

The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.

“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.

The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).

Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.

Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.

“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).

“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.

Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.

“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”

The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.

“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.

For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.

The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).

Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.

Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.

“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.

Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).

“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.

Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.

“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”

The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.

“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.

SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.