Rheumatoid Arthritis

The gut microbiome, previously shown to have an association with rheumatoid arthritis, may also provide signals of a patient’s disease prognosis, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have reported.

“We found that the gut microbiome is linked to whether patients with RA improve in their clinical symptoms or not,” cosenior author Jaeyun Sung, PhD, said in an interview. “We found features of the gut microbiome that linked to improvement, and we also put those features in a machine-learning model that can actually predict improvement at a follow-up visit.” Dr. Sung is a computational biologist with Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine in Rochester, Minn.

The retrospective, observational cohort study included 32 patients diagnosed with RA between 1988 and 2014. The researchers performed meta-genome shotgun sequencing on 64 stool samples kept in a biobank and collected at two separate visits 6-12 months apart. Dr. Sung and colleagues observed significantly different microbiome traits between patients who eventually showed minimally clinically important improvement and those who didn’t.

KATERYNA KON/Science SourceSource

The study also provided a proof of concept for using machine-learning technology to analyze the gut microbiome to predict the course of the disease, Dr. Sung said.

Cosenior author John M. Davis III, MD, a clinical rheumatologist and rheumatology research chair of the Mayo Clinic, noted that their own previous study had confirmed dysbiosis in people with RA when compared with controls. “We had some preliminary insight that it may be linked to some extent to the disease state and maybe treatments,” Dr. Davis said. “So that led us to hypothesize that there may be an association between the gut microbiome and response to treatment or disease activity over time.”

The study found that age was the dominant factor in determining variations in the gut microbiome composition, but the next prevailing factor was minimum clinically important improvement status, which 12 of the 32 study participants achieved at their follow-up visits. At baseline, all patients were on some type of treatment – either biologic or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, 46.9% and 87.5%, respectively), or prednisone (46.9%).
 

Gut microbiome composition

The patients who achieved minimum clinically important improvement had an average decline in Clinical Disease Activity Index of 16.7 units (standard deviation, 12.8) versus a gain of 5.7 (SD, 8.9) in the remaining patients. The study found higher species-level alpha diversity and richness and higher beta diversity in the group that achieved minimum clinically important improvement, compared with those who did not.

They identified six microbial taxa as higher in abundance in the improved patients: Negativicutes (class); Selenomonadales (order); Prevotellaceae (family); Coprococcus (genus); Bacteroides sp. 3_1_19 (species); and Bilophila sp. 4_1_30 (species). In the patients who showed no improvement, Eubacterium sp. 3_1_31 (species) was found to be higher (P < .05). They also found 15 metabolic pathways that were differently abundant between the two groups at baseline.

Two things make this study different from other studies of the gut microbiome in RA, Dr. Sung said: It didn’t have a control group, only RA patients, and it didn’t evaluate a specific drug in RA patients.

“We’re thinking beyond just drug or treatment, independent of prior treatment, independent of prior clinical measurements, independent of age, sex, and other factors, can we predict RA response just using the gut microbiome alone?” Dr. Sung said. “Is there an association between clinical improvement and the gut microbiome?”

The study also showed that the microbiome may be a modifiable target for RA, Dr. Davis said.

“This research is attractive because it may complement medical treatment for RA if we can identify dietary modifications,” he said. “Still, there’s the question if probiotics or prebiotics can influence the gut. Can we modify the gut microbiome to further ameliorate the disease state? That’s something I think is an open question that’s specifically called out in our paper.”

This study included patients with long-term disease, but the group’s ongoing research is focusing on patients with earlier-stage RA, Dr. Davis said. “The next steps have to be in validating [the findings] in additional and external populations and looking at patients with very early disease where a lot of the decision-making is very active and happening in real time.”

James T. Rosenbaum, MD, an ophthalmologist and rheumatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, acknowledged that this is the first study in RA to find an effect on the gut microbiome using the minimum clinically important improvement endpoint.

“It also raises a ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma,” Dr. Rosenbaum said in an interview. “Did the patients improve and then their microbiome changed, or was the microbiome the first change that led to the clinical improvement? If the latter is correct, we potentially could alter the microbiome, for example, by diet, to treat rheumatic disease.”

He noted that studies with fecal transplants for ulcerative colitis support the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification. “But,” he added, “we are still a long way from putting this in practice.”

“The outcome is promising,” Claudia Mauri, PhD, a professor of immunology at University College London, said of the study. “Obviously, if this can be repeated in a very large cohort of patients, it would give us the possibility to be able to, based on the composition of the microbiota, to predict who is going to respond to treatment or not.”

She noted that, while RA has a broader array of available treatments than other autoimmune diseases, some RA patients don’t respond their first biologic treatment. “If from the outset we would be able to see who may not respond based on the microbiota, we may prepare physicians to better target these patients by, for example, offering them an alternative second biologic agent,” Dr. Mauri said.

Dr. Davis reported receiving research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Sung and other study coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that the National Institutes of Health supports his research. Dr. Mauri has no financial relationships to disclose.

The gut microbiome, previously shown to have an association with rheumatoid arthritis, may also provide signals of a patient’s disease prognosis, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have reported.

“We found that the gut microbiome is linked to whether patients with RA improve in their clinical symptoms or not,” cosenior author Jaeyun Sung, PhD, said in an interview. “We found features of the gut microbiome that linked to improvement, and we also put those features in a machine-learning model that can actually predict improvement at a follow-up visit.” Dr. Sung is a computational biologist with Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine in Rochester, Minn.

The retrospective, observational cohort study included 32 patients diagnosed with RA between 1988 and 2014. The researchers performed meta-genome shotgun sequencing on 64 stool samples kept in a biobank and collected at two separate visits 6-12 months apart. Dr. Sung and colleagues observed significantly different microbiome traits between patients who eventually showed minimally clinically important improvement and those who didn’t.

KATERYNA KON/Science SourceSource

The study also provided a proof of concept for using machine-learning technology to analyze the gut microbiome to predict the course of the disease, Dr. Sung said.

Cosenior author John M. Davis III, MD, a clinical rheumatologist and rheumatology research chair of the Mayo Clinic, noted that their own previous study had confirmed dysbiosis in people with RA when compared with controls. “We had some preliminary insight that it may be linked to some extent to the disease state and maybe treatments,” Dr. Davis said. “So that led us to hypothesize that there may be an association between the gut microbiome and response to treatment or disease activity over time.”

The study found that age was the dominant factor in determining variations in the gut microbiome composition, but the next prevailing factor was minimum clinically important improvement status, which 12 of the 32 study participants achieved at their follow-up visits. At baseline, all patients were on some type of treatment – either biologic or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, 46.9% and 87.5%, respectively), or prednisone (46.9%).
 

Gut microbiome composition

The patients who achieved minimum clinically important improvement had an average decline in Clinical Disease Activity Index of 16.7 units (standard deviation, 12.8) versus a gain of 5.7 (SD, 8.9) in the remaining patients. The study found higher species-level alpha diversity and richness and higher beta diversity in the group that achieved minimum clinically important improvement, compared with those who did not.

They identified six microbial taxa as higher in abundance in the improved patients: Negativicutes (class); Selenomonadales (order); Prevotellaceae (family); Coprococcus (genus); Bacteroides sp. 3_1_19 (species); and Bilophila sp. 4_1_30 (species). In the patients who showed no improvement, Eubacterium sp. 3_1_31 (species) was found to be higher (P < .05). They also found 15 metabolic pathways that were differently abundant between the two groups at baseline.

Two things make this study different from other studies of the gut microbiome in RA, Dr. Sung said: It didn’t have a control group, only RA patients, and it didn’t evaluate a specific drug in RA patients.

“We’re thinking beyond just drug or treatment, independent of prior treatment, independent of prior clinical measurements, independent of age, sex, and other factors, can we predict RA response just using the gut microbiome alone?” Dr. Sung said. “Is there an association between clinical improvement and the gut microbiome?”

The study also showed that the microbiome may be a modifiable target for RA, Dr. Davis said.

“This research is attractive because it may complement medical treatment for RA if we can identify dietary modifications,” he said. “Still, there’s the question if probiotics or prebiotics can influence the gut. Can we modify the gut microbiome to further ameliorate the disease state? That’s something I think is an open question that’s specifically called out in our paper.”

This study included patients with long-term disease, but the group’s ongoing research is focusing on patients with earlier-stage RA, Dr. Davis said. “The next steps have to be in validating [the findings] in additional and external populations and looking at patients with very early disease where a lot of the decision-making is very active and happening in real time.”

James T. Rosenbaum, MD, an ophthalmologist and rheumatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, acknowledged that this is the first study in RA to find an effect on the gut microbiome using the minimum clinically important improvement endpoint.

“It also raises a ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma,” Dr. Rosenbaum said in an interview. “Did the patients improve and then their microbiome changed, or was the microbiome the first change that led to the clinical improvement? If the latter is correct, we potentially could alter the microbiome, for example, by diet, to treat rheumatic disease.”

He noted that studies with fecal transplants for ulcerative colitis support the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification. “But,” he added, “we are still a long way from putting this in practice.”

“The outcome is promising,” Claudia Mauri, PhD, a professor of immunology at University College London, said of the study. “Obviously, if this can be repeated in a very large cohort of patients, it would give us the possibility to be able to, based on the composition of the microbiota, to predict who is going to respond to treatment or not.”

She noted that, while RA has a broader array of available treatments than other autoimmune diseases, some RA patients don’t respond their first biologic treatment. “If from the outset we would be able to see who may not respond based on the microbiota, we may prepare physicians to better target these patients by, for example, offering them an alternative second biologic agent,” Dr. Mauri said.

Dr. Davis reported receiving research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Sung and other study coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that the National Institutes of Health supports his research. Dr. Mauri has no financial relationships to disclose.

The gut microbiome, previously shown to have an association with rheumatoid arthritis, may also provide signals of a patient’s disease prognosis, researchers at the Mayo Clinic have reported.

“We found that the gut microbiome is linked to whether patients with RA improve in their clinical symptoms or not,” cosenior author Jaeyun Sung, PhD, said in an interview. “We found features of the gut microbiome that linked to improvement, and we also put those features in a machine-learning model that can actually predict improvement at a follow-up visit.” Dr. Sung is a computational biologist with Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine in Rochester, Minn.

The retrospective, observational cohort study included 32 patients diagnosed with RA between 1988 and 2014. The researchers performed meta-genome shotgun sequencing on 64 stool samples kept in a biobank and collected at two separate visits 6-12 months apart. Dr. Sung and colleagues observed significantly different microbiome traits between patients who eventually showed minimally clinically important improvement and those who didn’t.

KATERYNA KON/Science SourceSource

The study also provided a proof of concept for using machine-learning technology to analyze the gut microbiome to predict the course of the disease, Dr. Sung said.

Cosenior author John M. Davis III, MD, a clinical rheumatologist and rheumatology research chair of the Mayo Clinic, noted that their own previous study had confirmed dysbiosis in people with RA when compared with controls. “We had some preliminary insight that it may be linked to some extent to the disease state and maybe treatments,” Dr. Davis said. “So that led us to hypothesize that there may be an association between the gut microbiome and response to treatment or disease activity over time.”

The study found that age was the dominant factor in determining variations in the gut microbiome composition, but the next prevailing factor was minimum clinically important improvement status, which 12 of the 32 study participants achieved at their follow-up visits. At baseline, all patients were on some type of treatment – either biologic or conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs, 46.9% and 87.5%, respectively), or prednisone (46.9%).
 

Gut microbiome composition

The patients who achieved minimum clinically important improvement had an average decline in Clinical Disease Activity Index of 16.7 units (standard deviation, 12.8) versus a gain of 5.7 (SD, 8.9) in the remaining patients. The study found higher species-level alpha diversity and richness and higher beta diversity in the group that achieved minimum clinically important improvement, compared with those who did not.

They identified six microbial taxa as higher in abundance in the improved patients: Negativicutes (class); Selenomonadales (order); Prevotellaceae (family); Coprococcus (genus); Bacteroides sp. 3_1_19 (species); and Bilophila sp. 4_1_30 (species). In the patients who showed no improvement, Eubacterium sp. 3_1_31 (species) was found to be higher (P < .05). They also found 15 metabolic pathways that were differently abundant between the two groups at baseline.

Two things make this study different from other studies of the gut microbiome in RA, Dr. Sung said: It didn’t have a control group, only RA patients, and it didn’t evaluate a specific drug in RA patients.

“We’re thinking beyond just drug or treatment, independent of prior treatment, independent of prior clinical measurements, independent of age, sex, and other factors, can we predict RA response just using the gut microbiome alone?” Dr. Sung said. “Is there an association between clinical improvement and the gut microbiome?”

The study also showed that the microbiome may be a modifiable target for RA, Dr. Davis said.

“This research is attractive because it may complement medical treatment for RA if we can identify dietary modifications,” he said. “Still, there’s the question if probiotics or prebiotics can influence the gut. Can we modify the gut microbiome to further ameliorate the disease state? That’s something I think is an open question that’s specifically called out in our paper.”

This study included patients with long-term disease, but the group’s ongoing research is focusing on patients with earlier-stage RA, Dr. Davis said. “The next steps have to be in validating [the findings] in additional and external populations and looking at patients with very early disease where a lot of the decision-making is very active and happening in real time.”

James T. Rosenbaum, MD, an ophthalmologist and rheumatologist at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, acknowledged that this is the first study in RA to find an effect on the gut microbiome using the minimum clinically important improvement endpoint.

“It also raises a ‘chicken-egg’ dilemma,” Dr. Rosenbaum said in an interview. “Did the patients improve and then their microbiome changed, or was the microbiome the first change that led to the clinical improvement? If the latter is correct, we potentially could alter the microbiome, for example, by diet, to treat rheumatic disease.”

He noted that studies with fecal transplants for ulcerative colitis support the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification. “But,” he added, “we are still a long way from putting this in practice.”

“The outcome is promising,” Claudia Mauri, PhD, a professor of immunology at University College London, said of the study. “Obviously, if this can be repeated in a very large cohort of patients, it would give us the possibility to be able to, based on the composition of the microbiota, to predict who is going to respond to treatment or not.”

She noted that, while RA has a broader array of available treatments than other autoimmune diseases, some RA patients don’t respond their first biologic treatment. “If from the outset we would be able to see who may not respond based on the microbiota, we may prepare physicians to better target these patients by, for example, offering them an alternative second biologic agent,” Dr. Mauri said.

Dr. Davis reported receiving research grants from Pfizer. Dr. Sung and other study coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Rosenbaum reported that the National Institutes of Health supports his research. Dr. Mauri has no financial relationships to disclose.

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended marketing authorization this week for two new adalimumab biosimilars, Hukyndra and Libmyris.

The biosimilars, both developed by STADA Arzneimittel AG, will be available as a 40-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe and pre-filled pen and 80-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe. Both biosimilars will have 15 indications:

• rheumatoid arthritis
• polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• enthesitis-related arthritis
• ankylosing spondylitis
• axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic evidence of ankylosing spondylitis
• psoriatic arthritis
• chronic plaque psoriasis (adults and children)
• hidradenitis suppurativa
• Crohn’s disease (adults and children)
• ulcerative colitis (adults and children)
• uveitis (adults and children)

Data show that both Hukyndra and Libmyris are highly similar to the reference product Humira (adalimumab), a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, and have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended marketing authorization this week for two new adalimumab biosimilars, Hukyndra and Libmyris.

The biosimilars, both developed by STADA Arzneimittel AG, will be available as a 40-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe and pre-filled pen and 80-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe. Both biosimilars will have 15 indications:

• rheumatoid arthritis
• polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• enthesitis-related arthritis
• ankylosing spondylitis
• axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic evidence of ankylosing spondylitis
• psoriatic arthritis
• chronic plaque psoriasis (adults and children)
• hidradenitis suppurativa
• Crohn’s disease (adults and children)
• ulcerative colitis (adults and children)
• uveitis (adults and children)

Data show that both Hukyndra and Libmyris are highly similar to the reference product Humira (adalimumab), a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, and have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended marketing authorization this week for two new adalimumab biosimilars, Hukyndra and Libmyris.

The biosimilars, both developed by STADA Arzneimittel AG, will be available as a 40-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe and pre-filled pen and 80-mg solution for injection in a pre-filled syringe. Both biosimilars will have 15 indications:

• rheumatoid arthritis
• polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
• enthesitis-related arthritis
• ankylosing spondylitis
• axial spondyloarthritis without radiographic evidence of ankylosing spondylitis
• psoriatic arthritis
• chronic plaque psoriasis (adults and children)
• hidradenitis suppurativa
• Crohn’s disease (adults and children)
• ulcerative colitis (adults and children)
• uveitis (adults and children)

Data show that both Hukyndra and Libmyris are highly similar to the reference product Humira (adalimumab), a monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor alpha, and have comparable quality, safety, and efficacy.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission had a rate of flare following vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine that appears to be on par with rates seen with other vaccines in patients with RA, according to results from a small Italian cohort study.

“Our data show a very low flare rate [7.8% (6 of 77)] after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) and hepatitis B virus (2.2%) vaccinations,” Riccardo Bixio, MD, and colleagues from University of Verona (Italy) Hospital Trust wrote in ACR Open Rheumatology. “Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”

Other studies of flare rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases have reported rates ranging from 5% to 17%, they said.

The 77 consecutive patients from the University of Verona center that conducted the study were all in clinical remission in the 3 months before vaccination based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of less than 2.6, and all had discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 recommendations. The researchers defined flares as agreement between patient and rheumatologist assessments and a DAS28-CRP increase of more than 1.2.

Five of the six people with a flare had it occur after the second dose at a mean of 2.6 days later, and all flares were resolved within 2 weeks using glucocorticoids with or without anti-inflammatory drugs. One flare was called severe. The overall disease activity of the cohort after 3 months was not significantly changed after vaccination.

In noting that five out of the six patients with flares had withdrawn or delayed antirheumatic therapies around the time of vaccination according to ACR recommendations, the authors wrote that “Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination.”

The authors had no outside funding for the study and had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

jevans@mdedge.com

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission had a rate of flare following vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine that appears to be on par with rates seen with other vaccines in patients with RA, according to results from a small Italian cohort study.

“Our data show a very low flare rate [7.8% (6 of 77)] after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) and hepatitis B virus (2.2%) vaccinations,” Riccardo Bixio, MD, and colleagues from University of Verona (Italy) Hospital Trust wrote in ACR Open Rheumatology. “Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”

Other studies of flare rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases have reported rates ranging from 5% to 17%, they said.

The 77 consecutive patients from the University of Verona center that conducted the study were all in clinical remission in the 3 months before vaccination based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of less than 2.6, and all had discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 recommendations. The researchers defined flares as agreement between patient and rheumatologist assessments and a DAS28-CRP increase of more than 1.2.

Five of the six people with a flare had it occur after the second dose at a mean of 2.6 days later, and all flares were resolved within 2 weeks using glucocorticoids with or without anti-inflammatory drugs. One flare was called severe. The overall disease activity of the cohort after 3 months was not significantly changed after vaccination.

In noting that five out of the six patients with flares had withdrawn or delayed antirheumatic therapies around the time of vaccination according to ACR recommendations, the authors wrote that “Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination.”

The authors had no outside funding for the study and had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

jevans@mdedge.com

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in remission had a rate of flare following vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNtech COVID-19 vaccine that appears to be on par with rates seen with other vaccines in patients with RA, according to results from a small Italian cohort study.

“Our data show a very low flare rate [7.8% (6 of 77)] after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) and hepatitis B virus (2.2%) vaccinations,” Riccardo Bixio, MD, and colleagues from University of Verona (Italy) Hospital Trust wrote in ACR Open Rheumatology. “Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination.”

Other studies of flare rate after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases have reported rates ranging from 5% to 17%, they said.

The 77 consecutive patients from the University of Verona center that conducted the study were all in clinical remission in the 3 months before vaccination based on a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) of less than 2.6, and all had discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology COVID-19 recommendations. The researchers defined flares as agreement between patient and rheumatologist assessments and a DAS28-CRP increase of more than 1.2.

Five of the six people with a flare had it occur after the second dose at a mean of 2.6 days later, and all flares were resolved within 2 weeks using glucocorticoids with or without anti-inflammatory drugs. One flare was called severe. The overall disease activity of the cohort after 3 months was not significantly changed after vaccination.

In noting that five out of the six patients with flares had withdrawn or delayed antirheumatic therapies around the time of vaccination according to ACR recommendations, the authors wrote that “Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination.”

The authors had no outside funding for the study and had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

jevans@mdedge.com

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

The arthritis and ulcerative colitis medicine tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR) poses an increased risk of serious cardiac events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death, the Food and Drug Administration announced Sept 1.

Manufacturers of this drug along with other Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) must update their boxed warnings to include information about these health risks. The FDA made the determination after new study data from Pfizer, which manufacturers Xeljanz, found an association between a lower dose of Xeljanz and increased risk of blood clots and death.

“Recommendations for healthcare professionals will include consideration of the benefits and risks for the individual patient prior to initiating or continuing therapy,” the agency stated.

The FDA is limiting all approved uses of these three medications to patients who have not responded well to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers to ensure their benefits outweigh their risks. Tofacitinib is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Baricitinib and upadacitinib are approved only for RA. The FDA included baricitinib and upadacitinib in the warning because of the similar properties they share with tofacitinib, even though they haven’t been studied as extensively.

“We believe this update will bring important clarity for healthcare plans on the risk/benefit profile of Xeljanz, which is a medicine informed by more clinical data than any other JAK inhibitor,” Pfizer said in a statement.

Investigators for the ORAL Surveillance trial compared two doses of tofacitinib (5 mg twice daily and 10 mg twice daily) with TNF blockers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor.

For both dose regimens of tofacitinib, they found an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, malignancies, thrombosis, and death compared with the TNF blocker regimen. In addition, rates of lung cancers and lymphomas were higher with tofacitinib. In trial data released earlier this year, Pfizer revealed that the tofacitinib group had a much higher incidence of adjudicated malignancies compared with the TNF blocker group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09).

Impact on clinical practice

Physicians treating patients who have rheumatoid arthritis with tofacitinib may initially decrease prescriptions following the FDA’s drug safety communication, said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor of medicine (emeritus) at the University of California, Los Angeles, adjunct professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a research professor at the University of Florence (Italy) – particularly those with a principal mechanism of action slightly different from that of tofacitinib, he added.

“Tofacitinib is principally a JAK 1,3 inhibitor at usual concentrations, whereas upadacitinib and baricitinib are JAK 1,2 inhibitors. Thus, I speculate that the tofacitinib prescriptions will go down more than the upadacitinib and baricitinib prescriptions,” he said in an interview.

Some patients may also be worried about taking tofacitinib, particularly those with previous events or predisposing conditions, Dr. Furst noted.

“First and foremost, I think we need to actually look at the data in a publication rather than just an FDA statement before making huge changes in our practice,” he advised.

“I am looking forward to the data finally being published ... It’s interesting that the full data still isn’t really out there beyond the press releases and an abstract. I think there’s a lot more to learn about how these drugs work and who is really at risk for harmful events,” said Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Pfizer’s data also may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

“I think many rheumatologists have already taken this information in, and begun to incorporate it into their discussions with their patients” since it has been over a year since the first public release of information about the ORAL Surveillance trial, said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “I don’t know that it will affect the approvals, but it will impact their labels.”

Wariness to prescribing tofacitinib may be lower for patients younger than those in the ORAL Surveillance trial without additional cardiovascular risk factors who are taking tofacitinib for non-RA indications, said gastroenterologist Miguel Regueiro, MD.

“The JAK inhibitor warning by the FDA is an important consideration for any prescriber or patient. The risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism with this class of medicine appears higher in older rheumatoid arthritis patients with underlying cardiovascular disease. While the warning applies to all JAK inhibitors and likely the newer selective JAK inhibitors to come, we need to weigh the risk and benefit based on the indication for prescribing,” said Dr. Regueiro, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute and of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

“I do think that there will be a heightened awareness and wariness for older RA patients and for the prescribers. However, for inflammatory bowel disease (and other non-RA indications), it does not appear that the risk for cardiovascular disease and VTE are significantly increased. To that end, in my own practice, I still use tofacitinib for ulcerative colitis and will do the same for the selective JAK inhibitors to come for IBD. Of course, as with any medication, we need to have discussions with our patients, alert them to potential side effects and have an open line of communication for any questions or concerns.”

Gastroenterologist Stephen Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, thought that while patients with RA have many other treatment options besides JAK inhibitors, fewer options available to patients with IBD “may motivate the use of oral [sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator] agents such as ozanimod, although IBD patients are younger and [have fewer] MACE risk factors than RA patients, so absolute risk is very small in the ulcerative colitis population.”

Pfizer’s data may be affecting FDA approvals of other JAK inhibitors. This past summer, AbbVie and Eli Lilly stated that the FDA’s ongoing assessment of the safety trial was delaying the agency’s decisions about expanding use of their respective drugs upadacitinib and baricitinib.

The agency’s decision corroborates an earlier 2019 warning about the increased risk of blood clots and of death in patients with ulcerative colitis taking 10 mg tofacitinib twice daily.

The FDA said that two other JAK inhibitors, ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic), are not indicated for the treatment of arthritis and other inflammatory conditions, and so are not a part of the updates being required.

Baricitinib, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib are currently under FDA review for treating atopic dermatitis (AD); a topical formulation of the JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib is under review for treating AD. Reviews for all 4 have been extended. In September 2020, baricitinib was approved for treating moderate to severe AD in Europe, at a dose of 4 mg once a day, with recommendations that the dose can be reduced to 2 mg once a day when the disease is under control, and that the dose may need to be reduced in patients with impaired kidney function, those with an increased risk of infections, and those older than aged 75 years.

In an interview, Jacob Thyssen, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen, said that in the EU, there has been “extensive education” about cardiovascular risks with baricitinib “and it is my impression that payers and dermatologists in Europe are confident that it is safe to use in AD.” In addition, there has been an emphasis on the differences in cardiovascular risk factors between RA and AD patients, “given that the latter group is generally young and lean.” In the United States, he added, it will be interesting to see which doses of the JAK inhibitors will be approved for AD.

Dr. Thyssen disclosed that he is a speaker, advisory board member and/or investigator for Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, and Almirall.
 

*This story was updated 9/3/21 and 9/6/2021.

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

Herpes zoster infection is another well-known complication of RA and its treatment, including glucocorticoid therapy. An increased incidence has recently been noted in people who use JAK inhibitors, though other bDMARDs including TNF inhibitors are also known to increase risk. Redeker et al. compare the incidence of herpes zoster in people with RA using csDMARDs, bDMARDs, and tsDMARDs using a German prospective RA registry. In nearly 14,000 patients, 559 cases of herpes zoster were documented; after adjusting for age, sex, and glucocorticoid use, an increased risk was noted for treatment with monoclonal anti-TNF therapy, B-cell directed therapy, and JAK inhibitors compared to csDMARDs, whereas soluble TNF receptor fusion protein, T cell costimulation modulators and IL-6 inhibitors were not associated with a higher risk of herpes zoster compared with csDMARDs. Unfortunately, zoster vaccination status was not extracted for all patients. The study confirms what we already know with direct risk comparison between different agents and underscores the importance of vaccination in RA patients, especially those being treated with glucocorticoids and tsDMARDs.

Finally, another important consideration in the use of bDMARDs is the increase in cancer risk due to a potential reduction in immunosurveillance. Initial meta-analyses of clinical trials of anti-TNF agents highlighted an early increase in cancer risk, though later studies including meta-analyses and registry studies with longer follow-up durations have been equivocal. Huss et al. examine a Swedish registry of people with RA and no prior history of cancer and found a small increase in cancer-risk in patients with RA compared to the general population (HR 1.2). However, there was no increase in overall cancer incidence in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, rituximab, abatacept, or JAK inhibitors compared to RA patients naïve to bDMARDs and tsDMARDs. Interestingly, urinary tract cancer risk was slightly increased in several treatment groups, though the effect size was small. Considering the generally long duration of follow-up (with the exception of JAK inhibitors), this study is very reassuring regarding long-term risk of cancer of bDMARD use and useful in counseling people with RA on therapeutic risks.

Herpes zoster infection is another well-known complication of RA and its treatment, including glucocorticoid therapy. An increased incidence has recently been noted in people who use JAK inhibitors, though other bDMARDs including TNF inhibitors are also known to increase risk. Redeker et al. compare the incidence of herpes zoster in people with RA using csDMARDs, bDMARDs, and tsDMARDs using a German prospective RA registry. In nearly 14,000 patients, 559 cases of herpes zoster were documented; after adjusting for age, sex, and glucocorticoid use, an increased risk was noted for treatment with monoclonal anti-TNF therapy, B-cell directed therapy, and JAK inhibitors compared to csDMARDs, whereas soluble TNF receptor fusion protein, T cell costimulation modulators and IL-6 inhibitors were not associated with a higher risk of herpes zoster compared with csDMARDs. Unfortunately, zoster vaccination status was not extracted for all patients. The study confirms what we already know with direct risk comparison between different agents and underscores the importance of vaccination in RA patients, especially those being treated with glucocorticoids and tsDMARDs.

Finally, another important consideration in the use of bDMARDs is the increase in cancer risk due to a potential reduction in immunosurveillance. Initial meta-analyses of clinical trials of anti-TNF agents highlighted an early increase in cancer risk, though later studies including meta-analyses and registry studies with longer follow-up durations have been equivocal. Huss et al. examine a Swedish registry of people with RA and no prior history of cancer and found a small increase in cancer-risk in patients with RA compared to the general population (HR 1.2). However, there was no increase in overall cancer incidence in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, rituximab, abatacept, or JAK inhibitors compared to RA patients naïve to bDMARDs and tsDMARDs. Interestingly, urinary tract cancer risk was slightly increased in several treatment groups, though the effect size was small. Considering the generally long duration of follow-up (with the exception of JAK inhibitors), this study is very reassuring regarding long-term risk of cancer of bDMARD use and useful in counseling people with RA on therapeutic risks.

Herpes zoster infection is another well-known complication of RA and its treatment, including glucocorticoid therapy. An increased incidence has recently been noted in people who use JAK inhibitors, though other bDMARDs including TNF inhibitors are also known to increase risk. Redeker et al. compare the incidence of herpes zoster in people with RA using csDMARDs, bDMARDs, and tsDMARDs using a German prospective RA registry. In nearly 14,000 patients, 559 cases of herpes zoster were documented; after adjusting for age, sex, and glucocorticoid use, an increased risk was noted for treatment with monoclonal anti-TNF therapy, B-cell directed therapy, and JAK inhibitors compared to csDMARDs, whereas soluble TNF receptor fusion protein, T cell costimulation modulators and IL-6 inhibitors were not associated with a higher risk of herpes zoster compared with csDMARDs. Unfortunately, zoster vaccination status was not extracted for all patients. The study confirms what we already know with direct risk comparison between different agents and underscores the importance of vaccination in RA patients, especially those being treated with glucocorticoids and tsDMARDs.

Finally, another important consideration in the use of bDMARDs is the increase in cancer risk due to a potential reduction in immunosurveillance. Initial meta-analyses of clinical trials of anti-TNF agents highlighted an early increase in cancer risk, though later studies including meta-analyses and registry studies with longer follow-up durations have been equivocal. Huss et al. examine a Swedish registry of people with RA and no prior history of cancer and found a small increase in cancer-risk in patients with RA compared to the general population (HR 1.2). However, there was no increase in overall cancer incidence in patients treated with TNF inhibitors, rituximab, abatacept, or JAK inhibitors compared to RA patients naïve to bDMARDs and tsDMARDs. Interestingly, urinary tract cancer risk was slightly increased in several treatment groups, though the effect size was small. Considering the generally long duration of follow-up (with the exception of JAK inhibitors), this study is very reassuring regarding long-term risk of cancer of bDMARD use and useful in counseling people with RA on therapeutic risks.

Key clinical point: High resistin levels predict radiologically more rapidly progressing disease in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with intensified disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination. Adding infliximab delayed radiological progression in these patients.

Major finding: Plasma resistin levels at baseline showed positive linearity with disease activity score based on 28-joint count (P = .0072). The addition of infliximab to the DMARD combination delayed radiological progression, with no difference observed between resistin tertiles at 5 years (P = .73).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the NEO-RACo trial, which enrolled 99 patients with early RA treated with intensified FIN-RACo regimen (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisolone). Subsequently, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or infliximab infusions added to the combination for 6 months.

Disclosures: The Scandinavian Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Maire Lisko Foundation, the Tampere University Hospital's Competitive Research, and others funded this study. None of the authors disclosed any potential conflict of interests.

Source: Vuolteenaho K et al. Scand J Rheumatol. 2021 Jul 15. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2021.1929456.

Key clinical point: High resistin levels predict radiologically more rapidly progressing disease in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with intensified disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination. Adding infliximab delayed radiological progression in these patients.

Major finding: Plasma resistin levels at baseline showed positive linearity with disease activity score based on 28-joint count (P = .0072). The addition of infliximab to the DMARD combination delayed radiological progression, with no difference observed between resistin tertiles at 5 years (P = .73).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the NEO-RACo trial, which enrolled 99 patients with early RA treated with intensified FIN-RACo regimen (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisolone). Subsequently, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or infliximab infusions added to the combination for 6 months.

Disclosures: The Scandinavian Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Maire Lisko Foundation, the Tampere University Hospital's Competitive Research, and others funded this study. None of the authors disclosed any potential conflict of interests.

Source: Vuolteenaho K et al. Scand J Rheumatol. 2021 Jul 15. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2021.1929456.

Key clinical point: High resistin levels predict radiologically more rapidly progressing disease in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with intensified disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination. Adding infliximab delayed radiological progression in these patients.

Major finding: Plasma resistin levels at baseline showed positive linearity with disease activity score based on 28-joint count (P = .0072). The addition of infliximab to the DMARD combination delayed radiological progression, with no difference observed between resistin tertiles at 5 years (P = .73).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the NEO-RACo trial, which enrolled 99 patients with early RA treated with intensified FIN-RACo regimen (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and prednisolone). Subsequently, patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or infliximab infusions added to the combination for 6 months.

Disclosures: The Scandinavian Rheumatology Research Foundation, the Maire Lisko Foundation, the Tampere University Hospital's Competitive Research, and others funded this study. None of the authors disclosed any potential conflict of interests.

Source: Vuolteenaho K et al. Scand J Rheumatol. 2021 Jul 15. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2021.1929456.

Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or combined therapy was remarkably effective and safe in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) monotherapy, primarily consisting of methotrexate.

Major finding: Compared with other DMARDs monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy or combined therapy was associated with significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% response (odds ratio, 1.97; P = .002), lower Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein (standard mean difference [SMD], −3.49), and a shorter duration of morning stiffness (SMD, −2.06; all P less than .001). The incidence of gastrointestinal events (P = .070), leucopenia (P = .309), transaminase elevation (P = .321), and liver damage (P = .182) was comparable between methotrexate and iguratimod monotherapy.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 23 randomized clinical trials involving 2,533 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hu CJ et al. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jul 16. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02603-2.

Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or combined therapy was remarkably effective and safe in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) monotherapy, primarily consisting of methotrexate.

Major finding: Compared with other DMARDs monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy or combined therapy was associated with significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% response (odds ratio, 1.97; P = .002), lower Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein (standard mean difference [SMD], −3.49), and a shorter duration of morning stiffness (SMD, −2.06; all P less than .001). The incidence of gastrointestinal events (P = .070), leucopenia (P = .309), transaminase elevation (P = .321), and liver damage (P = .182) was comparable between methotrexate and iguratimod monotherapy.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 23 randomized clinical trials involving 2,533 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hu CJ et al. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jul 16. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02603-2.

Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or combined therapy was remarkably effective and safe in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) monotherapy, primarily consisting of methotrexate.

Major finding: Compared with other DMARDs monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy or combined therapy was associated with significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% response (odds ratio, 1.97; P = .002), lower Disease Activity Score in 28 joints-C-reactive protein (standard mean difference [SMD], −3.49), and a shorter duration of morning stiffness (SMD, −2.06; all P less than .001). The incidence of gastrointestinal events (P = .070), leucopenia (P = .309), transaminase elevation (P = .321), and liver damage (P = .182) was comparable between methotrexate and iguratimod monotherapy.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 23 randomized clinical trials involving 2,533 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Hu CJ et al. J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jul 16. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02603-2.

Key clinical point: Meta-analysis showed a significant association between the use of fostamatinib and a higher risk for hypertension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, no association was observed with elevated risk for cardiovascular events.

Major findings: Fostamatinib was associated with significantly higher risk for hypertension compared with placebo (relative risk, 3.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.88-5.05); however, it was not associated with the higher risk for all-cause death (Peto odds ratio [pOR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.24), major adverse cardiovascular events (pOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.26-5.97), and other forms of heart disease (pOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.72-5.38).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 trials including 5,618 patients with RA who were treated with oral fostamatinib.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Post-doctoral Research and Development Fund of West China Hospital, the Clinical Research Incubation Project of West China Hospital, and the Sichuan Science and Technology Program. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chen Y et al. Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jul 19. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.632551.

Key clinical point: Meta-analysis showed a significant association between the use of fostamatinib and a higher risk for hypertension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, no association was observed with elevated risk for cardiovascular events.

Major findings: Fostamatinib was associated with significantly higher risk for hypertension compared with placebo (relative risk, 3.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.88-5.05); however, it was not associated with the higher risk for all-cause death (Peto odds ratio [pOR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.24), major adverse cardiovascular events (pOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.26-5.97), and other forms of heart disease (pOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.72-5.38).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 trials including 5,618 patients with RA who were treated with oral fostamatinib.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Post-doctoral Research and Development Fund of West China Hospital, the Clinical Research Incubation Project of West China Hospital, and the Sichuan Science and Technology Program. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chen Y et al. Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jul 19. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.632551.

Key clinical point: Meta-analysis showed a significant association between the use of fostamatinib and a higher risk for hypertension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, no association was observed with elevated risk for cardiovascular events.

Major findings: Fostamatinib was associated with significantly higher risk for hypertension compared with placebo (relative risk, 3.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.88-5.05); however, it was not associated with the higher risk for all-cause death (Peto odds ratio [pOR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.02-1.24), major adverse cardiovascular events (pOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.26-5.97), and other forms of heart disease (pOR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.72-5.38).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 12 trials including 5,618 patients with RA who were treated with oral fostamatinib.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Post-doctoral Research and Development Fund of West China Hospital, the Clinical Research Incubation Project of West China Hospital, and the Sichuan Science and Technology Program. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Chen Y et al. Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jul 19. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.632551.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with high baseline fibromyalgianess were more likely to use glucocorticoid persistently at 3 months follow-up, regardless of inflammatory activity.

Major finding: After adjusting for potential confounders including noninflammatory and inflammatory factors, patients with high or very high vs low fibromyalgianess were significantly more likely to be taking prednisone (adjusted odds ratio, 4.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-20.73) at 3-month follow-up.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 97 patients with active RA from the prospective Central Pain in RA (CPIRA) cohort, who were on oral prednisone for 3 months after starting a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

Disclosures: The CPIRA study was funded by the National Institute of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. YC Lee, MB Bolster, and DJ Clauw reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, honoraria, and/or stock ownership from various sources. All the other authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Wallace BI et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jul 22. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab583.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with high baseline fibromyalgianess were more likely to use glucocorticoid persistently at 3 months follow-up, regardless of inflammatory activity.

Major finding: After adjusting for potential confounders including noninflammatory and inflammatory factors, patients with high or very high vs low fibromyalgianess were significantly more likely to be taking prednisone (adjusted odds ratio, 4.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-20.73) at 3-month follow-up.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 97 patients with active RA from the prospective Central Pain in RA (CPIRA) cohort, who were on oral prednisone for 3 months after starting a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

Disclosures: The CPIRA study was funded by the National Institute of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. YC Lee, MB Bolster, and DJ Clauw reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, honoraria, and/or stock ownership from various sources. All the other authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Wallace BI et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jul 22. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab583.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with high baseline fibromyalgianess were more likely to use glucocorticoid persistently at 3 months follow-up, regardless of inflammatory activity.

Major finding: After adjusting for potential confounders including noninflammatory and inflammatory factors, patients with high or very high vs low fibromyalgianess were significantly more likely to be taking prednisone (adjusted odds ratio, 4.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-20.73) at 3-month follow-up.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 97 patients with active RA from the prospective Central Pain in RA (CPIRA) cohort, who were on oral prednisone for 3 months after starting a new disease-modifying antirheumatic drug.

Disclosures: The CPIRA study was funded by the National Institute of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. YC Lee, MB Bolster, and DJ Clauw reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, honoraria, and/or stock ownership from various sources. All the other authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Wallace BI et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jul 22. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab583.

Key clinical point: Long-term use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice was not associated with an increased incidence of overall cancer. However, a higher risk of developing urinary tract cancer was observed for TNFi, rituximab, and abatacept.

Major finding: Compared with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD)-naive patients, the relative risk for overall cancer was not higher among those treated with TNFis for 10 or more years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.2). However, the risk for urinary tract cancer was significantly higher with TNFi (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), rituximab (aHR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7), and abatacept (aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9).

Study details: This was an observational cohort study that included patients with RA (n=69,308) who received TNFis or other b/tsDMARDs, b/tsDMARDs-naïve patients with RA (n=56,233), and matched general population referents (n=109,532).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Karolinska Institute Region Stockholm. J Askling declared research agreements with various sources. The other authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Huss V et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jul 29. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab570.

Key clinical point: Long-term use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice was not associated with an increased incidence of overall cancer. However, a higher risk of developing urinary tract cancer was observed for TNFi, rituximab, and abatacept.

Major finding: Compared with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD)-naive patients, the relative risk for overall cancer was not higher among those treated with TNFis for 10 or more years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.2). However, the risk for urinary tract cancer was significantly higher with TNFi (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), rituximab (aHR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7), and abatacept (aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9).

Study details: This was an observational cohort study that included patients with RA (n=69,308) who received TNFis or other b/tsDMARDs, b/tsDMARDs-naïve patients with RA (n=56,233), and matched general population referents (n=109,532).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Karolinska Institute Region Stockholm. J Askling declared research agreements with various sources. The other authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Huss V et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jul 29. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab570.

Key clinical point: Long-term use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical practice was not associated with an increased incidence of overall cancer. However, a higher risk of developing urinary tract cancer was observed for TNFi, rituximab, and abatacept.

Major finding: Compared with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD)-naive patients, the relative risk for overall cancer was not higher among those treated with TNFis for 10 or more years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.2). However, the risk for urinary tract cancer was significantly higher with TNFi (aHR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9), rituximab (aHR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7), and abatacept (aHR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9).

Study details: This was an observational cohort study that included patients with RA (n=69,308) who received TNFis or other b/tsDMARDs, b/tsDMARDs-naïve patients with RA (n=56,233), and matched general population referents (n=109,532).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Karolinska Institute Region Stockholm. J Askling declared research agreements with various sources. The other authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Huss V et al. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021 Jul 29. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab570.