Rheumatoid Arthritis

MADRID – Biologics and tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors confer very little – if any – risk of malignancy upon those who take them for rheumatoid arthritis, according to a large Swedish registry study.

A doubling in the risk of squamous cell carcinoma among those who took abatacept was the only significant finding in the 8-year study of almost 70,000 subjects, Hjalmar Wadstrom, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. And while he said the finding could be spurious, he stressed that it can’t be ignored.

“We think this finding should be interpreted cautiously,” said Mr. Wadstrom, a doctoral student at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “These patients are seen frequently, and this increase in sqaumous cell carcinoma could be related to this multiple screening, or due to study bias. But of course, we cannot disregard it. It should be validated and further examined.”

The study plumbed several national patient registries and administrative databases for its cohort. It comprised 22,500 patients who, from 2006 to 2014, took tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab; or a TNF-inhibitor as a first or second disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. These were compared to 46,600 patients who took synthetic DMARDS during the same period and to a matched general population cohort (107,500). The mean age of all groups was about 59 years.

The primary outcome was a first-ever solid or hematologic malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The fully adjusted risk model controlled for age, sex, educational level, comorbidities, seropositivity, number of hospitalizations and days spent in inpatient care, use of prednisone at baseline, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at baseline, number of prescription drugs at baseline, and sick leave and disability.

A first invasive solid tumor or hematologic malignancy occurred in 50 patients taking tocilizumab; 61 taking abatacept; 141 taking rituximab; 478 taking a TNF-inhibitor as the first biologic DMARD; and 169 taking a TNF-inhibitor as the second DMARD. There was no statistically significant difference between any of these groups, when they were compared either to each other, to those taking a conventional synthetic DMARD, or to the general population.

The doubled risk of squamous cell carcinoma associated with abatacept (HR 2.2) was the only significant positive finding the secondary analysis, Dr. Wadstrom said.

He had no financial disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Biologics and tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors confer very little – if any – risk of malignancy upon those who take them for rheumatoid arthritis, according to a large Swedish registry study.

A doubling in the risk of squamous cell carcinoma among those who took abatacept was the only significant finding in the 8-year study of almost 70,000 subjects, Hjalmar Wadstrom, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. And while he said the finding could be spurious, he stressed that it can’t be ignored.

“We think this finding should be interpreted cautiously,” said Mr. Wadstrom, a doctoral student at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “These patients are seen frequently, and this increase in sqaumous cell carcinoma could be related to this multiple screening, or due to study bias. But of course, we cannot disregard it. It should be validated and further examined.”

The study plumbed several national patient registries and administrative databases for its cohort. It comprised 22,500 patients who, from 2006 to 2014, took tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab; or a TNF-inhibitor as a first or second disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. These were compared to 46,600 patients who took synthetic DMARDS during the same period and to a matched general population cohort (107,500). The mean age of all groups was about 59 years.

The primary outcome was a first-ever solid or hematologic malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The fully adjusted risk model controlled for age, sex, educational level, comorbidities, seropositivity, number of hospitalizations and days spent in inpatient care, use of prednisone at baseline, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at baseline, number of prescription drugs at baseline, and sick leave and disability.

A first invasive solid tumor or hematologic malignancy occurred in 50 patients taking tocilizumab; 61 taking abatacept; 141 taking rituximab; 478 taking a TNF-inhibitor as the first biologic DMARD; and 169 taking a TNF-inhibitor as the second DMARD. There was no statistically significant difference between any of these groups, when they were compared either to each other, to those taking a conventional synthetic DMARD, or to the general population.

The doubled risk of squamous cell carcinoma associated with abatacept (HR 2.2) was the only significant positive finding the secondary analysis, Dr. Wadstrom said.

He had no financial disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Biologics and tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors confer very little – if any – risk of malignancy upon those who take them for rheumatoid arthritis, according to a large Swedish registry study.

A doubling in the risk of squamous cell carcinoma among those who took abatacept was the only significant finding in the 8-year study of almost 70,000 subjects, Hjalmar Wadstrom, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. And while he said the finding could be spurious, he stressed that it can’t be ignored.

“We think this finding should be interpreted cautiously,” said Mr. Wadstrom, a doctoral student at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. “These patients are seen frequently, and this increase in sqaumous cell carcinoma could be related to this multiple screening, or due to study bias. But of course, we cannot disregard it. It should be validated and further examined.”

The study plumbed several national patient registries and administrative databases for its cohort. It comprised 22,500 patients who, from 2006 to 2014, took tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab; or a TNF-inhibitor as a first or second disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. These were compared to 46,600 patients who took synthetic DMARDS during the same period and to a matched general population cohort (107,500). The mean age of all groups was about 59 years.

The primary outcome was a first-ever solid or hematologic malignancy excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The fully adjusted risk model controlled for age, sex, educational level, comorbidities, seropositivity, number of hospitalizations and days spent in inpatient care, use of prednisone at baseline, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at baseline, number of prescription drugs at baseline, and sick leave and disability.

A first invasive solid tumor or hematologic malignancy occurred in 50 patients taking tocilizumab; 61 taking abatacept; 141 taking rituximab; 478 taking a TNF-inhibitor as the first biologic DMARD; and 169 taking a TNF-inhibitor as the second DMARD. There was no statistically significant difference between any of these groups, when they were compared either to each other, to those taking a conventional synthetic DMARD, or to the general population.

The doubled risk of squamous cell carcinoma associated with abatacept (HR 2.2) was the only significant positive finding the secondary analysis, Dr. Wadstrom said.

He had no financial disclosures.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Abatacept doesn’t appear to increase the risk of opportunistic infections among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Kevin Winthrop, MD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

After reviewing all of the extant safety data on the drug – all of its clinical trial and open-label study data, and case reports of abatacept-associated adverse events – Dr. Winthrop concluded that infections, including tuberculosis, fungal overgrowth, herpes simplex and herpes zoster, occur either with similar frequency or less often than among those taking placebo.

“In fact, there is a sense that abatacept is actually safer,” than some other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs,” said Dr. Winthrop, an infectious disease specialist at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. However, there are few data comparing safety among the agents – something he said should be examined in more detail.

His review encompassed 16 clinical trials comprising 7,044 patients who took the drug (21,330 patient/years of abatacept exposure) and 1,485 patients who took placebo. He conducted two analyses: one for opportunistic bacterial and fungal infections, and one for herpes simplex and herpes zoster.

The first analysis found 45 opportunistic bacterial or fungal infections among those taking abatacept – an incidence rate of 0.21/ 100 person-years. There were seven such infections in the placebo group – an incidence rate of 0.56/100 person-years. This difference was statistically significant.

In the abatacept cohort, there were two cases of bronchopulmonary aspergilliosis (IR 0.01) and three fungal eye infections (IR 0.01). There was also one case of gastrointestinal candidiasis; one fungal esophagitis; one cryptococcal meningitis; two pneumonias (one pseudomonal and one caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii); and two cases of respiratory monoliasis. All of these infections had an incidence rate of less than 0.01/100 person-years.

There were 17 tuberculosis cases (IR 0.08/100 person-years). Three cases were latent. Six of the cases were pulmonary and five were extrapulmonary. Two cases were unspecified. All occurred in regions with high or moderate endemic tuberculosis levels.

A meta-regression analysis examined the risk of opportunistic infections in the patients taken from the placebo-controlled clinical trials only (2,653 abatacept, 1,485 placebo). The estimated frequency of an opportunistic infection was 0.15% among those taking the drug and 0.48% among those taking placebo.

The herpes analysis examined the placebo-controlled clinical trial population as well. There were 57 cases of herpes simplex (IR 2.5/100 person-years) among those taking abatacept and 22 among those taking placebo (IR 1.8/100 person-years). The difference was not statistically significant.

There were 44 cases of herpes zoster among those taking abatacept (IR 1.9/100 person-years) and 21 among those taking placebo (IR 1.7/100 person-years).

“Basically, I think what we’re seeing here is a whole lot of nothing,” Dr. Winthrop said.

Dr. Winthrop has been a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Abatacept doesn’t appear to increase the risk of opportunistic infections among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Kevin Winthrop, MD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

After reviewing all of the extant safety data on the drug – all of its clinical trial and open-label study data, and case reports of abatacept-associated adverse events – Dr. Winthrop concluded that infections, including tuberculosis, fungal overgrowth, herpes simplex and herpes zoster, occur either with similar frequency or less often than among those taking placebo.

“In fact, there is a sense that abatacept is actually safer,” than some other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs,” said Dr. Winthrop, an infectious disease specialist at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. However, there are few data comparing safety among the agents – something he said should be examined in more detail.

His review encompassed 16 clinical trials comprising 7,044 patients who took the drug (21,330 patient/years of abatacept exposure) and 1,485 patients who took placebo. He conducted two analyses: one for opportunistic bacterial and fungal infections, and one for herpes simplex and herpes zoster.

The first analysis found 45 opportunistic bacterial or fungal infections among those taking abatacept – an incidence rate of 0.21/ 100 person-years. There were seven such infections in the placebo group – an incidence rate of 0.56/100 person-years. This difference was statistically significant.

In the abatacept cohort, there were two cases of bronchopulmonary aspergilliosis (IR 0.01) and three fungal eye infections (IR 0.01). There was also one case of gastrointestinal candidiasis; one fungal esophagitis; one cryptococcal meningitis; two pneumonias (one pseudomonal and one caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii); and two cases of respiratory monoliasis. All of these infections had an incidence rate of less than 0.01/100 person-years.

There were 17 tuberculosis cases (IR 0.08/100 person-years). Three cases were latent. Six of the cases were pulmonary and five were extrapulmonary. Two cases were unspecified. All occurred in regions with high or moderate endemic tuberculosis levels.

A meta-regression analysis examined the risk of opportunistic infections in the patients taken from the placebo-controlled clinical trials only (2,653 abatacept, 1,485 placebo). The estimated frequency of an opportunistic infection was 0.15% among those taking the drug and 0.48% among those taking placebo.

The herpes analysis examined the placebo-controlled clinical trial population as well. There were 57 cases of herpes simplex (IR 2.5/100 person-years) among those taking abatacept and 22 among those taking placebo (IR 1.8/100 person-years). The difference was not statistically significant.

There were 44 cases of herpes zoster among those taking abatacept (IR 1.9/100 person-years) and 21 among those taking placebo (IR 1.7/100 person-years).

“Basically, I think what we’re seeing here is a whole lot of nothing,” Dr. Winthrop said.

Dr. Winthrop has been a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Abatacept doesn’t appear to increase the risk of opportunistic infections among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Kevin Winthrop, MD, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

After reviewing all of the extant safety data on the drug – all of its clinical trial and open-label study data, and case reports of abatacept-associated adverse events – Dr. Winthrop concluded that infections, including tuberculosis, fungal overgrowth, herpes simplex and herpes zoster, occur either with similar frequency or less often than among those taking placebo.

“In fact, there is a sense that abatacept is actually safer,” than some other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs,” said Dr. Winthrop, an infectious disease specialist at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. However, there are few data comparing safety among the agents – something he said should be examined in more detail.

His review encompassed 16 clinical trials comprising 7,044 patients who took the drug (21,330 patient/years of abatacept exposure) and 1,485 patients who took placebo. He conducted two analyses: one for opportunistic bacterial and fungal infections, and one for herpes simplex and herpes zoster.

The first analysis found 45 opportunistic bacterial or fungal infections among those taking abatacept – an incidence rate of 0.21/ 100 person-years. There were seven such infections in the placebo group – an incidence rate of 0.56/100 person-years. This difference was statistically significant.

In the abatacept cohort, there were two cases of bronchopulmonary aspergilliosis (IR 0.01) and three fungal eye infections (IR 0.01). There was also one case of gastrointestinal candidiasis; one fungal esophagitis; one cryptococcal meningitis; two pneumonias (one pseudomonal and one caused by Pneumocystis jirovecii); and two cases of respiratory monoliasis. All of these infections had an incidence rate of less than 0.01/100 person-years.

There were 17 tuberculosis cases (IR 0.08/100 person-years). Three cases were latent. Six of the cases were pulmonary and five were extrapulmonary. Two cases were unspecified. All occurred in regions with high or moderate endemic tuberculosis levels.

A meta-regression analysis examined the risk of opportunistic infections in the patients taken from the placebo-controlled clinical trials only (2,653 abatacept, 1,485 placebo). The estimated frequency of an opportunistic infection was 0.15% among those taking the drug and 0.48% among those taking placebo.

The herpes analysis examined the placebo-controlled clinical trial population as well. There were 57 cases of herpes simplex (IR 2.5/100 person-years) among those taking abatacept and 22 among those taking placebo (IR 1.8/100 person-years). The difference was not statistically significant.

There were 44 cases of herpes zoster among those taking abatacept (IR 1.9/100 person-years) and 21 among those taking placebo (IR 1.7/100 person-years).

“Basically, I think what we’re seeing here is a whole lot of nothing,” Dr. Winthrop said.

Dr. Winthrop has been a consultant for Pfizer, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Second-hand smoke exposure to children was about as potent a trigger for future rheumatoid arthritis as active smoking by an adult, based on an analysis of data collected from more than 70,000 French women followed for an average of more than 20 years

“This is the first demonstration of a rheumatoid arthritis risk associated with passive smoking,” Raphaèle Seror, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“This is an important finding because we can avoid passive smoke exposure,” Dr. Seror added in a video interview . The imperative to eliminate second-hand smoke exposure to children is particularly acute for those with a genetic risk for developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), specifically children with a parent diagnosed with RA, suggested Dr. Seror, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Paris–South.

She and her associates used data collected in the E3N, a longitudinal French epidemiological study that enrolled nearly 100,000 women in 1990 when they were 40-65 years old and collected health data by questionnaire every 2-3 years for an average of 21 years. They identified from this cohort women with “confirmed” RA based on a self report of having incident RA during follow-up plus a coincident record of reimbursement for a prescription for an RA-specific treatment, such as methotrexate or a biological disease-modifying drug.

This identified 389 women with confirmed incident RA, including 350 with a complete smoking history that made the current analysis possible. The study also included 70,248 women who did not develop RA and who had provided a complete smoking history.

The analysis showed that women who reported a history of second-hand smoke exposure estimated at more than an hour daily as children but without a history of active smoking had a 43% higher rate of incident RA compared with never smoker women without a history of passive smoke exposure, Dr. Seror reported. This association just missed reaching statistical significance, a limitation that Dr. Seror attributed to a power issue as the analysis included only 30 women who had incident RA and a history of second-hand smoke exposure without adult smoke exposure. By comparison, women in the study with a history of active smoking without childhood exposure linked had a 37% increased incidence of RA, a finding that confirmed the well-known link between smoking and RA incidence.

The study also found that women with both second-hand smoke exposure as children and adult smoking linked with a 73% higher RA incidence, an indication that the contributions from second-hand smoke in children and active smoking by adults were not only similar in magnitude but also worked additively to promote RA development.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – Second-hand smoke exposure to children was about as potent a trigger for future rheumatoid arthritis as active smoking by an adult, based on an analysis of data collected from more than 70,000 French women followed for an average of more than 20 years

“This is the first demonstration of a rheumatoid arthritis risk associated with passive smoking,” Raphaèle Seror, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“This is an important finding because we can avoid passive smoke exposure,” Dr. Seror added in a video interview . The imperative to eliminate second-hand smoke exposure to children is particularly acute for those with a genetic risk for developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), specifically children with a parent diagnosed with RA, suggested Dr. Seror, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Paris–South.

She and her associates used data collected in the E3N, a longitudinal French epidemiological study that enrolled nearly 100,000 women in 1990 when they were 40-65 years old and collected health data by questionnaire every 2-3 years for an average of 21 years. They identified from this cohort women with “confirmed” RA based on a self report of having incident RA during follow-up plus a coincident record of reimbursement for a prescription for an RA-specific treatment, such as methotrexate or a biological disease-modifying drug.

This identified 389 women with confirmed incident RA, including 350 with a complete smoking history that made the current analysis possible. The study also included 70,248 women who did not develop RA and who had provided a complete smoking history.

The analysis showed that women who reported a history of second-hand smoke exposure estimated at more than an hour daily as children but without a history of active smoking had a 43% higher rate of incident RA compared with never smoker women without a history of passive smoke exposure, Dr. Seror reported. This association just missed reaching statistical significance, a limitation that Dr. Seror attributed to a power issue as the analysis included only 30 women who had incident RA and a history of second-hand smoke exposure without adult smoke exposure. By comparison, women in the study with a history of active smoking without childhood exposure linked had a 37% increased incidence of RA, a finding that confirmed the well-known link between smoking and RA incidence.

The study also found that women with both second-hand smoke exposure as children and adult smoking linked with a 73% higher RA incidence, an indication that the contributions from second-hand smoke in children and active smoking by adults were not only similar in magnitude but also worked additively to promote RA development.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – Second-hand smoke exposure to children was about as potent a trigger for future rheumatoid arthritis as active smoking by an adult, based on an analysis of data collected from more than 70,000 French women followed for an average of more than 20 years

“This is the first demonstration of a rheumatoid arthritis risk associated with passive smoking,” Raphaèle Seror, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“This is an important finding because we can avoid passive smoke exposure,” Dr. Seror added in a video interview . The imperative to eliminate second-hand smoke exposure to children is particularly acute for those with a genetic risk for developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA), specifically children with a parent diagnosed with RA, suggested Dr. Seror, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Paris–South.

She and her associates used data collected in the E3N, a longitudinal French epidemiological study that enrolled nearly 100,000 women in 1990 when they were 40-65 years old and collected health data by questionnaire every 2-3 years for an average of 21 years. They identified from this cohort women with “confirmed” RA based on a self report of having incident RA during follow-up plus a coincident record of reimbursement for a prescription for an RA-specific treatment, such as methotrexate or a biological disease-modifying drug.

This identified 389 women with confirmed incident RA, including 350 with a complete smoking history that made the current analysis possible. The study also included 70,248 women who did not develop RA and who had provided a complete smoking history.

The analysis showed that women who reported a history of second-hand smoke exposure estimated at more than an hour daily as children but without a history of active smoking had a 43% higher rate of incident RA compared with never smoker women without a history of passive smoke exposure, Dr. Seror reported. This association just missed reaching statistical significance, a limitation that Dr. Seror attributed to a power issue as the analysis included only 30 women who had incident RA and a history of second-hand smoke exposure without adult smoke exposure. By comparison, women in the study with a history of active smoking without childhood exposure linked had a 37% increased incidence of RA, a finding that confirmed the well-known link between smoking and RA incidence.

The study also found that women with both second-hand smoke exposure as children and adult smoking linked with a 73% higher RA incidence, an indication that the contributions from second-hand smoke in children and active smoking by adults were not only similar in magnitude but also worked additively to promote RA development.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – With biosimilar infliximab on the U.S. market since November 2016 and producing an immediate, albeit modest, price drop for this tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and a second biosimilar infliximab now approved by the Food and Drug Administration and awaiting market entry, biosimilars are in a new phase of integration into U.S. practice.

“Physicians are willing to prescribe Inflectra,” the first biosimilar infliximab and the first TNFi to be sold in the United States last November, Jonathan Kay, MD, said in a video interview during the European Congress of Rheumatology. “Rheumatologists who were initially skeptical are now on the bandwagon and willing to prescribe biosimilars,” said Dr. Kay, a rheumatologist who has often consulted on biosimilar issues and has recently spoken to rheumatologists at various state society meetings to explain the U.S. biosimilar regulatory concepts and spread the message of the societal value of these agents.

“This is not a quick and casual drug evaluation” that produces “knockoff drugs,” but a “careful and extensive” FDA review that results in drugs that are equivalent in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the reference drug and only compete on price, he explained.

When Pfizer began marketing Inflectra last Fall, it set the drug’s list price 15% lower than the list price at the time for Remicade, the reference-product infliximab. However, complex pricing and rebate strategies actually led to Remicade selling for a lower price than Inflectra, at least for some U.S. hospitals, including the University of Massachusetts in Worcester, where Dr. Kay is a professor of medicine.

“The effect of biosimilars is to reduce the cost to patients of an effective treatment. Whether that cost is for the reference drug or for the biosimilar drug doesn’t matter [from society’s perspective] as long as patients are able to receive an effective therapy at a [more] affordable cost, making the effective therapy available to more patients,” he said.

While Inflectra’s price impact my have been modest so far, the biosimilar effect on infliximab’s cost may soon intensify now that a second biosimilar of this TNFi, Renflexis – made by Samsung Bioepis and with U.S. marketing by Merck, received FDA approval on April 21, 2017. Until recently, U.S. pharmaceutical regulations had been understood to require a 180-day hiatus between FDA marketing approval for a biosimilar and the start of U.S. sales. But, on June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that this 180-day wait was not required, making it possible for U.S. marketing of Renflexis to begin soon. (In mid-June, a statement on the Merck U.S. website for Renflexis says that the product is not currently available.)

Availability of a second biosimilar infliximab “is likely to drive the price down rapidly,” predicted Dr. Kay, citing what happened when multiple biosimilars for a reference drug came onto the European market.

Two other biosimilar TNFi have also received FDA marketing approvals but remain on hold as patent issues and litigation barriers play out. Erelzi – biosimilar etanercept – received FDA approval in August 2016, and Amjevita, biosimilar adalimumab, received FDA approval last September.

The efficacy and safety of Inflectra specifically, and by extension all biosimilars, received a recent boost with publication of findings from a randomized study with 482 patients that provided a real-world test of the core principle of biosimilar equivalence. After Inflectra came onto the Norwegian market, during July 2014 to August 2015, Norwegian researchers ran the NOR-SWTICH trial, which randomized patients who were on stable treatment with Remicade for a variety of indications (including 41% with a rheumatologic disease) to either stay on Remicade or to abruptly switch to treatment with Inflectra. During 1-year follow-up, the incidence of adverse effects and of episodes of disease worsening were virtually identical in the two treatment arms (Lancet. 2017 June 10;389[10086]:2304-16).

Dr. Kay has been a consultant to several companies that develop or market biosimilars, including Samsung Bioepis, Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz (Novartis), and to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – With biosimilar infliximab on the U.S. market since November 2016 and producing an immediate, albeit modest, price drop for this tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and a second biosimilar infliximab now approved by the Food and Drug Administration and awaiting market entry, biosimilars are in a new phase of integration into U.S. practice.

“Physicians are willing to prescribe Inflectra,” the first biosimilar infliximab and the first TNFi to be sold in the United States last November, Jonathan Kay, MD, said in a video interview during the European Congress of Rheumatology. “Rheumatologists who were initially skeptical are now on the bandwagon and willing to prescribe biosimilars,” said Dr. Kay, a rheumatologist who has often consulted on biosimilar issues and has recently spoken to rheumatologists at various state society meetings to explain the U.S. biosimilar regulatory concepts and spread the message of the societal value of these agents.

“This is not a quick and casual drug evaluation” that produces “knockoff drugs,” but a “careful and extensive” FDA review that results in drugs that are equivalent in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the reference drug and only compete on price, he explained.

When Pfizer began marketing Inflectra last Fall, it set the drug’s list price 15% lower than the list price at the time for Remicade, the reference-product infliximab. However, complex pricing and rebate strategies actually led to Remicade selling for a lower price than Inflectra, at least for some U.S. hospitals, including the University of Massachusetts in Worcester, where Dr. Kay is a professor of medicine.

“The effect of biosimilars is to reduce the cost to patients of an effective treatment. Whether that cost is for the reference drug or for the biosimilar drug doesn’t matter [from society’s perspective] as long as patients are able to receive an effective therapy at a [more] affordable cost, making the effective therapy available to more patients,” he said.

While Inflectra’s price impact my have been modest so far, the biosimilar effect on infliximab’s cost may soon intensify now that a second biosimilar of this TNFi, Renflexis – made by Samsung Bioepis and with U.S. marketing by Merck, received FDA approval on April 21, 2017. Until recently, U.S. pharmaceutical regulations had been understood to require a 180-day hiatus between FDA marketing approval for a biosimilar and the start of U.S. sales. But, on June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that this 180-day wait was not required, making it possible for U.S. marketing of Renflexis to begin soon. (In mid-June, a statement on the Merck U.S. website for Renflexis says that the product is not currently available.)

Availability of a second biosimilar infliximab “is likely to drive the price down rapidly,” predicted Dr. Kay, citing what happened when multiple biosimilars for a reference drug came onto the European market.

Two other biosimilar TNFi have also received FDA marketing approvals but remain on hold as patent issues and litigation barriers play out. Erelzi – biosimilar etanercept – received FDA approval in August 2016, and Amjevita, biosimilar adalimumab, received FDA approval last September.

The efficacy and safety of Inflectra specifically, and by extension all biosimilars, received a recent boost with publication of findings from a randomized study with 482 patients that provided a real-world test of the core principle of biosimilar equivalence. After Inflectra came onto the Norwegian market, during July 2014 to August 2015, Norwegian researchers ran the NOR-SWTICH trial, which randomized patients who were on stable treatment with Remicade for a variety of indications (including 41% with a rheumatologic disease) to either stay on Remicade or to abruptly switch to treatment with Inflectra. During 1-year follow-up, the incidence of adverse effects and of episodes of disease worsening were virtually identical in the two treatment arms (Lancet. 2017 June 10;389[10086]:2304-16).

Dr. Kay has been a consultant to several companies that develop or market biosimilars, including Samsung Bioepis, Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz (Novartis), and to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – With biosimilar infliximab on the U.S. market since November 2016 and producing an immediate, albeit modest, price drop for this tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and a second biosimilar infliximab now approved by the Food and Drug Administration and awaiting market entry, biosimilars are in a new phase of integration into U.S. practice.

“Physicians are willing to prescribe Inflectra,” the first biosimilar infliximab and the first TNFi to be sold in the United States last November, Jonathan Kay, MD, said in a video interview during the European Congress of Rheumatology. “Rheumatologists who were initially skeptical are now on the bandwagon and willing to prescribe biosimilars,” said Dr. Kay, a rheumatologist who has often consulted on biosimilar issues and has recently spoken to rheumatologists at various state society meetings to explain the U.S. biosimilar regulatory concepts and spread the message of the societal value of these agents.

“This is not a quick and casual drug evaluation” that produces “knockoff drugs,” but a “careful and extensive” FDA review that results in drugs that are equivalent in efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the reference drug and only compete on price, he explained.

When Pfizer began marketing Inflectra last Fall, it set the drug’s list price 15% lower than the list price at the time for Remicade, the reference-product infliximab. However, complex pricing and rebate strategies actually led to Remicade selling for a lower price than Inflectra, at least for some U.S. hospitals, including the University of Massachusetts in Worcester, where Dr. Kay is a professor of medicine.

“The effect of biosimilars is to reduce the cost to patients of an effective treatment. Whether that cost is for the reference drug or for the biosimilar drug doesn’t matter [from society’s perspective] as long as patients are able to receive an effective therapy at a [more] affordable cost, making the effective therapy available to more patients,” he said.

While Inflectra’s price impact my have been modest so far, the biosimilar effect on infliximab’s cost may soon intensify now that a second biosimilar of this TNFi, Renflexis – made by Samsung Bioepis and with U.S. marketing by Merck, received FDA approval on April 21, 2017. Until recently, U.S. pharmaceutical regulations had been understood to require a 180-day hiatus between FDA marketing approval for a biosimilar and the start of U.S. sales. But, on June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, ruled that this 180-day wait was not required, making it possible for U.S. marketing of Renflexis to begin soon. (In mid-June, a statement on the Merck U.S. website for Renflexis says that the product is not currently available.)

Availability of a second biosimilar infliximab “is likely to drive the price down rapidly,” predicted Dr. Kay, citing what happened when multiple biosimilars for a reference drug came onto the European market.

Two other biosimilar TNFi have also received FDA marketing approvals but remain on hold as patent issues and litigation barriers play out. Erelzi – biosimilar etanercept – received FDA approval in August 2016, and Amjevita, biosimilar adalimumab, received FDA approval last September.

The efficacy and safety of Inflectra specifically, and by extension all biosimilars, received a recent boost with publication of findings from a randomized study with 482 patients that provided a real-world test of the core principle of biosimilar equivalence. After Inflectra came onto the Norwegian market, during July 2014 to August 2015, Norwegian researchers ran the NOR-SWTICH trial, which randomized patients who were on stable treatment with Remicade for a variety of indications (including 41% with a rheumatologic disease) to either stay on Remicade or to abruptly switch to treatment with Inflectra. During 1-year follow-up, the incidence of adverse effects and of episodes of disease worsening were virtually identical in the two treatment arms (Lancet. 2017 June 10;389[10086]:2304-16).

Dr. Kay has been a consultant to several companies that develop or market biosimilars, including Samsung Bioepis, Amgen, Pfizer, and Sandoz (Novartis), and to AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – Adding ultrasound exams to a treat to target (T2T) protocol did not improve remission outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

In fact, seven-joint ultrasound actually reduced the chance that patients would achieve clinical remission in several remission assessment tools, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“We saw no advantage in using ultrasound of seven joints in addition to clinical examination, compared to clinical examination alone,” said Dr. Sepriano of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “We can speculate on the reasons why, but, in truth, this is the same message we have now seen in two other studies.”

Subclinical, ultrasound-detected synovitis has been shown to be predictive of disease flare in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting that ultrasound may have a role in defining treatment strategies, but recent trials integrating musculoskeletal ultrasound assessments into a T2T protocol have not shown better outcomes than when standard clinical definitions of remission are used.

Dr. Sepriano presented findings from BIODAM, a 2-year observational cohort of RA patients across 10 countries who are managed under a T2T protocol.

Several studies, including BIODAM, have helped to establish T2T – which intensifies treatment if patients are not in remission and eases treatment intensity when patients are in remission – as an optimal management strategy in RA. Dr. Sepriano and his colleagues set out to learn whether using ultrasound data in T2T would result in better outcomes, by creating a combined new strategy using both ultrasound and clinical measures, than does use of the established T2T strategy that uses only clinical data.

To do this, they looked at a subgroup of 130 patients from six countries who were treated at the BIODAM centers that had expertise in ultrasound. Patients’ clinical and ultrasound data were collected every 3 months through 2 years (for 1,037 visits in total) and were managed by rheumatologists under established T2T protocols. These patients were a mean of 55 years old, with a mean disease duration of 6 years.

As in the broader BIODAM study, the researchers used multiple clinical definitions of remission, including 28-joint and 44-joint Disease Activity Scores and the European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology–Boolean criteria. For the ultrasound measure, they used the previously validated US-7, which looks at seven joints for signs of synovitis.

In general, the proportion of patients in clinical remission rose over the study period, no matter what assessment tool was used. However, Dr. Sepriano and his colleagues found that the combined clinical and ultrasound benchmark for T2T decreased the likelihood of DAS-44 clinical remission after 3 months by 41% when compared with the conventional strategy. The story was similar for other assessments: The reduction was 49% on the DAS-28, 55% on Boolean remission, and 66% on Simple Disease Activity Index remission.

The reasons for this finding are difficult to discern, Dr. Sepriano said, and are complicated by the fact that this study was not a randomized, controlled trial but a longitudinal cohort in real-world practice settings.

Given the many variables involved, Dr. Sepriano said, “it may be not entirely linear to have an explanation as to why, when we used ultrasound, we actually got worse results.”

But, he noted, results from two randomized trials in more restricted populations of RA patients have also shown no benefit from adding ultrasound.

“What the data are telling us is that the clinician should be encouraged to use clinical data in his or her decisions – so we stress the importance of following a T2T strategy according to clinical data,” Dr. Sepriano said. “Adding ultrasound may not be an advantage in this scenario.”

Additional studies may end up changing this outlook on ultrasound, but, for now, the evidence does not exist, he said in a video interview.

Dr. Sepriano and his associates had no conflicts of interest to declare.

MADRID – Adding ultrasound exams to a treat to target (T2T) protocol did not improve remission outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

In fact, seven-joint ultrasound actually reduced the chance that patients would achieve clinical remission in several remission assessment tools, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“We saw no advantage in using ultrasound of seven joints in addition to clinical examination, compared to clinical examination alone,” said Dr. Sepriano of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “We can speculate on the reasons why, but, in truth, this is the same message we have now seen in two other studies.”

Subclinical, ultrasound-detected synovitis has been shown to be predictive of disease flare in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting that ultrasound may have a role in defining treatment strategies, but recent trials integrating musculoskeletal ultrasound assessments into a T2T protocol have not shown better outcomes than when standard clinical definitions of remission are used.

Dr. Sepriano presented findings from BIODAM, a 2-year observational cohort of RA patients across 10 countries who are managed under a T2T protocol.

Several studies, including BIODAM, have helped to establish T2T – which intensifies treatment if patients are not in remission and eases treatment intensity when patients are in remission – as an optimal management strategy in RA. Dr. Sepriano and his colleagues set out to learn whether using ultrasound data in T2T would result in better outcomes, by creating a combined new strategy using both ultrasound and clinical measures, than does use of the established T2T strategy that uses only clinical data.

To do this, they looked at a subgroup of 130 patients from six countries who were treated at the BIODAM centers that had expertise in ultrasound. Patients’ clinical and ultrasound data were collected every 3 months through 2 years (for 1,037 visits in total) and were managed by rheumatologists under established T2T protocols. These patients were a mean of 55 years old, with a mean disease duration of 6 years.

As in the broader BIODAM study, the researchers used multiple clinical definitions of remission, including 28-joint and 44-joint Disease Activity Scores and the European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology–Boolean criteria. For the ultrasound measure, they used the previously validated US-7, which looks at seven joints for signs of synovitis.

In general, the proportion of patients in clinical remission rose over the study period, no matter what assessment tool was used. However, Dr. Sepriano and his colleagues found that the combined clinical and ultrasound benchmark for T2T decreased the likelihood of DAS-44 clinical remission after 3 months by 41% when compared with the conventional strategy. The story was similar for other assessments: The reduction was 49% on the DAS-28, 55% on Boolean remission, and 66% on Simple Disease Activity Index remission.

The reasons for this finding are difficult to discern, Dr. Sepriano said, and are complicated by the fact that this study was not a randomized, controlled trial but a longitudinal cohort in real-world practice settings.

Given the many variables involved, Dr. Sepriano said, “it may be not entirely linear to have an explanation as to why, when we used ultrasound, we actually got worse results.”

But, he noted, results from two randomized trials in more restricted populations of RA patients have also shown no benefit from adding ultrasound.

“What the data are telling us is that the clinician should be encouraged to use clinical data in his or her decisions – so we stress the importance of following a T2T strategy according to clinical data,” Dr. Sepriano said. “Adding ultrasound may not be an advantage in this scenario.”

Additional studies may end up changing this outlook on ultrasound, but, for now, the evidence does not exist, he said in a video interview.

Dr. Sepriano and his associates had no conflicts of interest to declare.

MADRID – Adding ultrasound exams to a treat to target (T2T) protocol did not improve remission outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

In fact, seven-joint ultrasound actually reduced the chance that patients would achieve clinical remission in several remission assessment tools, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“We saw no advantage in using ultrasound of seven joints in addition to clinical examination, compared to clinical examination alone,” said Dr. Sepriano of Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center. “We can speculate on the reasons why, but, in truth, this is the same message we have now seen in two other studies.”

Subclinical, ultrasound-detected synovitis has been shown to be predictive of disease flare in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting that ultrasound may have a role in defining treatment strategies, but recent trials integrating musculoskeletal ultrasound assessments into a T2T protocol have not shown better outcomes than when standard clinical definitions of remission are used.

Dr. Sepriano presented findings from BIODAM, a 2-year observational cohort of RA patients across 10 countries who are managed under a T2T protocol.

Several studies, including BIODAM, have helped to establish T2T – which intensifies treatment if patients are not in remission and eases treatment intensity when patients are in remission – as an optimal management strategy in RA. Dr. Sepriano and his colleagues set out to learn whether using ultrasound data in T2T would result in better outcomes, by creating a combined new strategy using both ultrasound and clinical measures, than does use of the established T2T strategy that uses only clinical data.

To do this, they looked at a subgroup of 130 patients from six countries who were treated at the BIODAM centers that had expertise in ultrasound. Patients’ clinical and ultrasound data were collected every 3 months through 2 years (for 1,037 visits in total) and were managed by rheumatologists under established T2T protocols. These patients were a mean of 55 years old, with a mean disease duration of 6 years.

As in the broader BIODAM study, the researchers used multiple clinical definitions of remission, including 28-joint and 44-joint Disease Activity Scores and the European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology–Boolean criteria. For the ultrasound measure, they used the previously validated US-7, which looks at seven joints for signs of synovitis.

In general, the proportion of patients in clinical remission rose over the study period, no matter what assessment tool was used. However, Dr. Sepriano and his colleagues found that the combined clinical and ultrasound benchmark for T2T decreased the likelihood of DAS-44 clinical remission after 3 months by 41% when compared with the conventional strategy. The story was similar for other assessments: The reduction was 49% on the DAS-28, 55% on Boolean remission, and 66% on Simple Disease Activity Index remission.

The reasons for this finding are difficult to discern, Dr. Sepriano said, and are complicated by the fact that this study was not a randomized, controlled trial but a longitudinal cohort in real-world practice settings.

Given the many variables involved, Dr. Sepriano said, “it may be not entirely linear to have an explanation as to why, when we used ultrasound, we actually got worse results.”

But, he noted, results from two randomized trials in more restricted populations of RA patients have also shown no benefit from adding ultrasound.

“What the data are telling us is that the clinician should be encouraged to use clinical data in his or her decisions – so we stress the importance of following a T2T strategy according to clinical data,” Dr. Sepriano said. “Adding ultrasound may not be an advantage in this scenario.”

Additional studies may end up changing this outlook on ultrasound, but, for now, the evidence does not exist, he said in a video interview.

Dr. Sepriano and his associates had no conflicts of interest to declare.

MADRID – Rheumatologists all over the world are beginning to find that the new class of anticancer immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have the potential to elicit symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other rheumatic diseases in patients with no previous history of them, and two reports from the European Congress of Rheumatology provide typical examples.

These immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents, which include ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab (Opdivo), and pembrolizumab (Keytruda), target regulatory pathways in T cells to boost antitumor immune responses, leading to improved survival for many cancer patients, but the induction of rheumatic disease can sometimes lead to the suspension of the agents, according to investigators.

MADRID – Rheumatologists all over the world are beginning to find that the new class of anticancer immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have the potential to elicit symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other rheumatic diseases in patients with no previous history of them, and two reports from the European Congress of Rheumatology provide typical examples.

These immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents, which include ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab (Opdivo), and pembrolizumab (Keytruda), target regulatory pathways in T cells to boost antitumor immune responses, leading to improved survival for many cancer patients, but the induction of rheumatic disease can sometimes lead to the suspension of the agents, according to investigators.

MADRID – Rheumatologists all over the world are beginning to find that the new class of anticancer immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies have the potential to elicit symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other rheumatic diseases in patients with no previous history of them, and two reports from the European Congress of Rheumatology provide typical examples.

These immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents, which include ipilimumab (Yervoy), nivolumab (Opdivo), and pembrolizumab (Keytruda), target regulatory pathways in T cells to boost antitumor immune responses, leading to improved survival for many cancer patients, but the induction of rheumatic disease can sometimes lead to the suspension of the agents, according to investigators.

MADRID – The benefits of primary prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) outweighed the risks of treatment in patients taking prolonged, high-dose corticosteroids for various rheumatic diseases in a study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

In a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 1,522 corticosteroid treatment episodes in 1,092 patients with a variety of rheumatic conditions given over a 12-year follow-up period, the estimated incidence of PCP was 2.37 per 100 person-years.

Significantly fewer cases of PCP occurred at 1 year, however, in the 262 patients who were cotreated with the antibiotic combination of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), than in the 1,260 patients who received no such antibiotic prophylaxis in addition to their steroid therapy.

rhnews@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – The benefits of primary prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) outweighed the risks of treatment in patients taking prolonged, high-dose corticosteroids for various rheumatic diseases in a study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

In a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 1,522 corticosteroid treatment episodes in 1,092 patients with a variety of rheumatic conditions given over a 12-year follow-up period, the estimated incidence of PCP was 2.37 per 100 person-years.

Significantly fewer cases of PCP occurred at 1 year, however, in the 262 patients who were cotreated with the antibiotic combination of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), than in the 1,260 patients who received no such antibiotic prophylaxis in addition to their steroid therapy.

rhnews@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – The benefits of primary prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) outweighed the risks of treatment in patients taking prolonged, high-dose corticosteroids for various rheumatic diseases in a study presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

In a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 1,522 corticosteroid treatment episodes in 1,092 patients with a variety of rheumatic conditions given over a 12-year follow-up period, the estimated incidence of PCP was 2.37 per 100 person-years.

Significantly fewer cases of PCP occurred at 1 year, however, in the 262 patients who were cotreated with the antibiotic combination of trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), than in the 1,260 patients who received no such antibiotic prophylaxis in addition to their steroid therapy.

rhnews@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – Additional real-world evidence confirmed that biological disease modifying drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis produced no spikes in new cancers or in cancer recurrences in registry data from tens of thousands of Swedish patients.

Among rheumatoid arthritis patients with a history of cancer, patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) were not at an increased risk for cancer recurrence, Johan Askling, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. In a second study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with a non-TNFi, biological, disease-modifying drug, specifically abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab, had no significantly different rate of new cancer onset when compared with RA patients who never received a biological disease modifying drug nor when compared with the general Swedish adult population, said Dr. Askling, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

The cancer-recurrence risk study with TNFi treatment used data collected by the Swedish national outpatient care registry on nearly 62,000 people, the Swedish cancer registry, and a rheumatology treatment registry called ARTIS. It also included patients treated during 2001-2014. From these sources, the researchers identified 446 RA patients with a history of at least one cancer who then began treatment with any type of TNFi and matched these cases with 1,278 similar RA patients with a cancer history who had never received a biologic drug. On average, the patients were nearly 10 years removed from their initial cancer diagnoses, and the average duration on TNFi treatment was nearly 5 years.

The adjusted hazard ratio for cancer recurrence among the TNFi recipients was reduced by a nominal 30%, compared with that of the controls, a difference that was not statistically significant, Dr. Askling reported.

The second study used data from similar sources for patients treated during 2006-2014 and included nearly 100,000 Swedes from the general population, more than 42,000 RA patients who did not receive a biological drug, more than 14,000 treated with either a first or second TNFi drug, and 1,693 patients treated with tocilizumab (Actemra), 1,894 on abatacept (Orencia), and 3,119 on rituximab (Rituxan).

The rates of new onset cancer in any of these treatment groups, including the patients on tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab, was not significantly different from the rate among RA patients who never received a biologic drug, nor from the general Swedish population rate, Dr. Askling said.

This is “one of the first large-scale assessments” of the cancer risk posed by non-TNFi biological drugs, aside from what was reported from the pivotal trials for these drugs, Dr. Askling said.

Dr. Askling has received research support from AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – Additional real-world evidence confirmed that biological disease modifying drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis produced no spikes in new cancers or in cancer recurrences in registry data from tens of thousands of Swedish patients.

Among rheumatoid arthritis patients with a history of cancer, patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) were not at an increased risk for cancer recurrence, Johan Askling, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. In a second study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with a non-TNFi, biological, disease-modifying drug, specifically abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab, had no significantly different rate of new cancer onset when compared with RA patients who never received a biological disease modifying drug nor when compared with the general Swedish adult population, said Dr. Askling, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

The cancer-recurrence risk study with TNFi treatment used data collected by the Swedish national outpatient care registry on nearly 62,000 people, the Swedish cancer registry, and a rheumatology treatment registry called ARTIS. It also included patients treated during 2001-2014. From these sources, the researchers identified 446 RA patients with a history of at least one cancer who then began treatment with any type of TNFi and matched these cases with 1,278 similar RA patients with a cancer history who had never received a biologic drug. On average, the patients were nearly 10 years removed from their initial cancer diagnoses, and the average duration on TNFi treatment was nearly 5 years.

The adjusted hazard ratio for cancer recurrence among the TNFi recipients was reduced by a nominal 30%, compared with that of the controls, a difference that was not statistically significant, Dr. Askling reported.

The second study used data from similar sources for patients treated during 2006-2014 and included nearly 100,000 Swedes from the general population, more than 42,000 RA patients who did not receive a biological drug, more than 14,000 treated with either a first or second TNFi drug, and 1,693 patients treated with tocilizumab (Actemra), 1,894 on abatacept (Orencia), and 3,119 on rituximab (Rituxan).

The rates of new onset cancer in any of these treatment groups, including the patients on tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab, was not significantly different from the rate among RA patients who never received a biologic drug, nor from the general Swedish population rate, Dr. Askling said.

This is “one of the first large-scale assessments” of the cancer risk posed by non-TNFi biological drugs, aside from what was reported from the pivotal trials for these drugs, Dr. Askling said.

Dr. Askling has received research support from AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

MADRID – Additional real-world evidence confirmed that biological disease modifying drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis produced no spikes in new cancers or in cancer recurrences in registry data from tens of thousands of Swedish patients.

Among rheumatoid arthritis patients with a history of cancer, patients treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) were not at an increased risk for cancer recurrence, Johan Askling, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. In a second study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with a non-TNFi, biological, disease-modifying drug, specifically abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab, had no significantly different rate of new cancer onset when compared with RA patients who never received a biological disease modifying drug nor when compared with the general Swedish adult population, said Dr. Askling, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

The cancer-recurrence risk study with TNFi treatment used data collected by the Swedish national outpatient care registry on nearly 62,000 people, the Swedish cancer registry, and a rheumatology treatment registry called ARTIS. It also included patients treated during 2001-2014. From these sources, the researchers identified 446 RA patients with a history of at least one cancer who then began treatment with any type of TNFi and matched these cases with 1,278 similar RA patients with a cancer history who had never received a biologic drug. On average, the patients were nearly 10 years removed from their initial cancer diagnoses, and the average duration on TNFi treatment was nearly 5 years.

The adjusted hazard ratio for cancer recurrence among the TNFi recipients was reduced by a nominal 30%, compared with that of the controls, a difference that was not statistically significant, Dr. Askling reported.

The second study used data from similar sources for patients treated during 2006-2014 and included nearly 100,000 Swedes from the general population, more than 42,000 RA patients who did not receive a biological drug, more than 14,000 treated with either a first or second TNFi drug, and 1,693 patients treated with tocilizumab (Actemra), 1,894 on abatacept (Orencia), and 3,119 on rituximab (Rituxan).

The rates of new onset cancer in any of these treatment groups, including the patients on tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab, was not significantly different from the rate among RA patients who never received a biologic drug, nor from the general Swedish population rate, Dr. Askling said.

This is “one of the first large-scale assessments” of the cancer risk posed by non-TNFi biological drugs, aside from what was reported from the pivotal trials for these drugs, Dr. Askling said.

Dr. Askling has received research support from AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – Data from the ocrelizumab clinical development program gives clinicians a first look at pregnancy outcomes after exposure to the drug, but the small size limits the ability to draw firm conclusions.

In the United States, prescribing information for ocrelizumab states that women of childbearing potential should use contraception while receiving ocrelizumab and for 6 months after the last infusion. At the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, researchers led by Sibyl Wray, MD, set out to assess the pregnancy, fetal, neonatal and infant outcomes in patients who became pregnant during ocrelizumab trials in MS, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) through Sept. 15, 2015.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

MS data

Of the 15 pregnancies in the MS trials, three involved the delivery of full term, healthy newborns. In one case, the last ocrelizumab infusion was given 28 months before conception. In the second case, an infusion was given 20 weeks before conception, and a further infusion was given 17 days after conception. In the third case, the last ocrelizumab infusion was given 26.5 weeks before conception.

One live term birth occurred with an abnormal finding. In this case, the last infusion of ocrelizumab was 23 weeks prior to the last menstrual period or about 6 months prior to conception. The embryo/fetus was not exposed to the drug in utero. The researchers also found that seven elective terminations occurred among MS patients and that four pregnancies were ongoing at the time of this report.

“We have to be cautious because we don’t have enough data yet to know, but it’s encouraging to see that, if you follow the guidelines, the patient population and the newborns seem to be healthy in these exposed individuals,” Dr. Wray said.

RA data

Data from the RA clinical trials revealed 22 pregnancies in 21 patients exposed to ocrelizumab. Of these, eight pregnancies resulted in healthy term babies; four resulted in live births with abnormal findings (structural malformation, growth abnormality) or preterm birth; and eight pregnancies in seven women resulted in spontaneous abortion (one patient experienced a spontaneous abortion on two occasions), missed abortion, or an embryonic pregnancy. One pregnancy was lost to follow-up and another resulted in elective termination.

SLE data

During the SLE trials, 11 pregnancies occurred in 10 patients. Three pregnancies in two women resulted in healthy term babies. Three other pregnancies resulted in live births with an abnormal finding (structural malformation, functional deficit, growth abnormality) and/or preterm birth. Two pregnancies resulted in spontaneous/missed abortion. One pregnancy resulted in fetal death at 7.5 months’ gestation secondary to fatal pulmonary embolism in the mother; one pregnancy resulted in elective termination; and one pregnancy resulted in a healthy baby born at an unknown gestational week.

Dr. Wray emphasized that the small numbers of patients studied make it difficult to draw conclusions about pregnancy outcomes following ocrelizumab in patients with MS and other autoimmune diseases. “We need to pay attention to the half-life of this drug, the time it takes to clear, and how to plan pregnancies around that,” she said. She noted that pregnancy outcomes in ongoing ocrelizumab studies and postmarketing experiences will continue to be collected and assessed.

The study was funded by Roche, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Wray reported that she has received honoraria and/or research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Data from the ocrelizumab clinical development program gives clinicians a first look at pregnancy outcomes after exposure to the drug, but the small size limits the ability to draw firm conclusions.

In the United States, prescribing information for ocrelizumab states that women of childbearing potential should use contraception while receiving ocrelizumab and for 6 months after the last infusion. At the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, researchers led by Sibyl Wray, MD, set out to assess the pregnancy, fetal, neonatal and infant outcomes in patients who became pregnant during ocrelizumab trials in MS, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) through Sept. 15, 2015.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

MS data

Of the 15 pregnancies in the MS trials, three involved the delivery of full term, healthy newborns. In one case, the last ocrelizumab infusion was given 28 months before conception. In the second case, an infusion was given 20 weeks before conception, and a further infusion was given 17 days after conception. In the third case, the last ocrelizumab infusion was given 26.5 weeks before conception.

One live term birth occurred with an abnormal finding. In this case, the last infusion of ocrelizumab was 23 weeks prior to the last menstrual period or about 6 months prior to conception. The embryo/fetus was not exposed to the drug in utero. The researchers also found that seven elective terminations occurred among MS patients and that four pregnancies were ongoing at the time of this report.

“We have to be cautious because we don’t have enough data yet to know, but it’s encouraging to see that, if you follow the guidelines, the patient population and the newborns seem to be healthy in these exposed individuals,” Dr. Wray said.

RA data

Data from the RA clinical trials revealed 22 pregnancies in 21 patients exposed to ocrelizumab. Of these, eight pregnancies resulted in healthy term babies; four resulted in live births with abnormal findings (structural malformation, growth abnormality) or preterm birth; and eight pregnancies in seven women resulted in spontaneous abortion (one patient experienced a spontaneous abortion on two occasions), missed abortion, or an embryonic pregnancy. One pregnancy was lost to follow-up and another resulted in elective termination.

SLE data

During the SLE trials, 11 pregnancies occurred in 10 patients. Three pregnancies in two women resulted in healthy term babies. Three other pregnancies resulted in live births with an abnormal finding (structural malformation, functional deficit, growth abnormality) and/or preterm birth. Two pregnancies resulted in spontaneous/missed abortion. One pregnancy resulted in fetal death at 7.5 months’ gestation secondary to fatal pulmonary embolism in the mother; one pregnancy resulted in elective termination; and one pregnancy resulted in a healthy baby born at an unknown gestational week.

Dr. Wray emphasized that the small numbers of patients studied make it difficult to draw conclusions about pregnancy outcomes following ocrelizumab in patients with MS and other autoimmune diseases. “We need to pay attention to the half-life of this drug, the time it takes to clear, and how to plan pregnancies around that,” she said. She noted that pregnancy outcomes in ongoing ocrelizumab studies and postmarketing experiences will continue to be collected and assessed.

The study was funded by Roche, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Wray reported that she has received honoraria and/or research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

NEW ORLEANS – Data from the ocrelizumab clinical development program gives clinicians a first look at pregnancy outcomes after exposure to the drug, but the small size limits the ability to draw firm conclusions.

In the United States, prescribing information for ocrelizumab states that women of childbearing potential should use contraception while receiving ocrelizumab and for 6 months after the last infusion. At the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, researchers led by Sibyl Wray, MD, set out to assess the pregnancy, fetal, neonatal and infant outcomes in patients who became pregnant during ocrelizumab trials in MS, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) through Sept. 15, 2015.

Doug Brunk/Frontline Medical News

MS data

Of the 15 pregnancies in the MS trials, three involved the delivery of full term, healthy newborns. In one case, the last ocrelizumab infusion was given 28 months before conception. In the second case, an infusion was given 20 weeks before conception, and a further infusion was given 17 days after conception. In the third case, the last ocrelizumab infusion was given 26.5 weeks before conception.

One live term birth occurred with an abnormal finding. In this case, the last infusion of ocrelizumab was 23 weeks prior to the last menstrual period or about 6 months prior to conception. The embryo/fetus was not exposed to the drug in utero. The researchers also found that seven elective terminations occurred among MS patients and that four pregnancies were ongoing at the time of this report.

“We have to be cautious because we don’t have enough data yet to know, but it’s encouraging to see that, if you follow the guidelines, the patient population and the newborns seem to be healthy in these exposed individuals,” Dr. Wray said.

RA data

Data from the RA clinical trials revealed 22 pregnancies in 21 patients exposed to ocrelizumab. Of these, eight pregnancies resulted in healthy term babies; four resulted in live births with abnormal findings (structural malformation, growth abnormality) or preterm birth; and eight pregnancies in seven women resulted in spontaneous abortion (one patient experienced a spontaneous abortion on two occasions), missed abortion, or an embryonic pregnancy. One pregnancy was lost to follow-up and another resulted in elective termination.

SLE data

During the SLE trials, 11 pregnancies occurred in 10 patients. Three pregnancies in two women resulted in healthy term babies. Three other pregnancies resulted in live births with an abnormal finding (structural malformation, functional deficit, growth abnormality) and/or preterm birth. Two pregnancies resulted in spontaneous/missed abortion. One pregnancy resulted in fetal death at 7.5 months’ gestation secondary to fatal pulmonary embolism in the mother; one pregnancy resulted in elective termination; and one pregnancy resulted in a healthy baby born at an unknown gestational week.

Dr. Wray emphasized that the small numbers of patients studied make it difficult to draw conclusions about pregnancy outcomes following ocrelizumab in patients with MS and other autoimmune diseases. “We need to pay attention to the half-life of this drug, the time it takes to clear, and how to plan pregnancies around that,” she said. She noted that pregnancy outcomes in ongoing ocrelizumab studies and postmarketing experiences will continue to be collected and assessed.

The study was funded by Roche, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Wray reported that she has received honoraria and/or research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Biogen, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Genzyme/Sanofi, Novartis, and TG Therapeutics.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

Novel treatments involving the interleukin-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase (JAK) pathways and the growing importance of early diagnosis and treatment will be some of the key themes covered in the scientific program at this year’s EULAR congress in Madrid, June 14-17.

The annual EULAR congress’ traditional spirit of giving congress attendees a thorough scientific update of the evidence published in peer-reviewed journals across the broad spectrum of rheumatic diseases is reflected in the wide range of state-of-the-art lectures, clinical and basic science symposia, practical workshops, and special interest sessions running throughout the packed 4-day congress, said João Eurico Cabral da Fonseca, MD, PhD, chair of the Scientific Programme Committee.

Novel treatments involving the interleukin-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase (JAK) pathways and the growing importance of early diagnosis and treatment will be some of the key themes covered in the scientific program at this year’s EULAR congress in Madrid, June 14-17.

The annual EULAR congress’ traditional spirit of giving congress attendees a thorough scientific update of the evidence published in peer-reviewed journals across the broad spectrum of rheumatic diseases is reflected in the wide range of state-of-the-art lectures, clinical and basic science symposia, practical workshops, and special interest sessions running throughout the packed 4-day congress, said João Eurico Cabral da Fonseca, MD, PhD, chair of the Scientific Programme Committee.

Novel treatments involving the interleukin-17, IL-23, and Janus kinase (JAK) pathways and the growing importance of early diagnosis and treatment will be some of the key themes covered in the scientific program at this year’s EULAR congress in Madrid, June 14-17.

The annual EULAR congress’ traditional spirit of giving congress attendees a thorough scientific update of the evidence published in peer-reviewed journals across the broad spectrum of rheumatic diseases is reflected in the wide range of state-of-the-art lectures, clinical and basic science symposia, practical workshops, and special interest sessions running throughout the packed 4-day congress, said João Eurico Cabral da Fonseca, MD, PhD, chair of the Scientific Programme Committee.