Rheumatoid Arthritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aotto@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aotto@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aotto@mdedge.com

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

Both antiadalimumab (Humira) antibodies and adalimumab serum levels fell short on predicting drug responses in rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed initial adalimumab therapy, based on a retrospective cohort study of 137 adults.

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), notably adalimumab, are often prescribed for RA, but “approximately 41% of RA patients do not achieve good response after 6 months of treatment with adalimumab,” wrote Evy Ulijn of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. Preliminary studies have suggested that antiadalimumab antibodies (antidrug antibodies, ADA) and adalimumab serum levels (ADL) may predict the response to a second bDMARD in patients who fail initial adalimumab treatment, they said.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers examined data from 137 adult RA patients seen at the clinic during Jan. 2012–Jan. 2018 who failed to respond to adalimumab after at least 3 months of treatment and started another bDMARD. The average age of the patients was 64 years, and approximately 69% were women.

Overall, the presence of ADA was not a significant predictor of a European League Against Rheumatism good response in patients who switched to another TNFi (etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, or certolizumab pegol), with sensitivity of 18% and specificity of 75%. ADA also was not predictive of response to a non-TNFi bDMARD (rituximab, tocilizumab, or abatacept), with sensitivity and specificity of 33% and 70%, respectively.

Similarly, ADL levels in patients who switched to a TNFi or non-TNFi were not significant predictors of treatment response, with sensitivities and specificities of 50% and 52%, respectively, for TNFi and 32% and 69%, respectively, for non-TNFi.

The findings that neither ADA nor ADL showed predictive values contrast with previous studies, the researchers said.

“Not only did the results of this study show no predictive values, in some analyses a prediction is found in the opposite direction of what was expected,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the random timing of sample collection, retrospective study design, and potential for misclassification of responders or nonresponders, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the blinded choice of treatment and outcome assessment, larger sample size than previous studies, and focus on adalimumab in particular, they said.

“While counterintuitive, it is hard to find an explanation for the lack of a positive finding,” they concluded.

More research is needed to confirm the predictive value of ADA and ADL, they said. In the meantime, rheumatologists should base decisions to switch patients to TNFi or non-TNFi treatment after adalimumab failure based on factors including side effects, local protocol, economical aspects, and patient preferences, they said.

The study received no external funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ulijn E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-216996.

Both antiadalimumab (Humira) antibodies and adalimumab serum levels fell short on predicting drug responses in rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed initial adalimumab therapy, based on a retrospective cohort study of 137 adults.

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), notably adalimumab, are often prescribed for RA, but “approximately 41% of RA patients do not achieve good response after 6 months of treatment with adalimumab,” wrote Evy Ulijn of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. Preliminary studies have suggested that antiadalimumab antibodies (antidrug antibodies, ADA) and adalimumab serum levels (ADL) may predict the response to a second bDMARD in patients who fail initial adalimumab treatment, they said.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers examined data from 137 adult RA patients seen at the clinic during Jan. 2012–Jan. 2018 who failed to respond to adalimumab after at least 3 months of treatment and started another bDMARD. The average age of the patients was 64 years, and approximately 69% were women.

Overall, the presence of ADA was not a significant predictor of a European League Against Rheumatism good response in patients who switched to another TNFi (etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, or certolizumab pegol), with sensitivity of 18% and specificity of 75%. ADA also was not predictive of response to a non-TNFi bDMARD (rituximab, tocilizumab, or abatacept), with sensitivity and specificity of 33% and 70%, respectively.

Similarly, ADL levels in patients who switched to a TNFi or non-TNFi were not significant predictors of treatment response, with sensitivities and specificities of 50% and 52%, respectively, for TNFi and 32% and 69%, respectively, for non-TNFi.

The findings that neither ADA nor ADL showed predictive values contrast with previous studies, the researchers said.

“Not only did the results of this study show no predictive values, in some analyses a prediction is found in the opposite direction of what was expected,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the random timing of sample collection, retrospective study design, and potential for misclassification of responders or nonresponders, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the blinded choice of treatment and outcome assessment, larger sample size than previous studies, and focus on adalimumab in particular, they said.

“While counterintuitive, it is hard to find an explanation for the lack of a positive finding,” they concluded.

More research is needed to confirm the predictive value of ADA and ADL, they said. In the meantime, rheumatologists should base decisions to switch patients to TNFi or non-TNFi treatment after adalimumab failure based on factors including side effects, local protocol, economical aspects, and patient preferences, they said.

The study received no external funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ulijn E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-216996.

Both antiadalimumab (Humira) antibodies and adalimumab serum levels fell short on predicting drug responses in rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed initial adalimumab therapy, based on a retrospective cohort study of 137 adults.

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), notably adalimumab, are often prescribed for RA, but “approximately 41% of RA patients do not achieve good response after 6 months of treatment with adalimumab,” wrote Evy Ulijn of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues. Preliminary studies have suggested that antiadalimumab antibodies (antidrug antibodies, ADA) and adalimumab serum levels (ADL) may predict the response to a second bDMARD in patients who fail initial adalimumab treatment, they said.

In a study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the researchers examined data from 137 adult RA patients seen at the clinic during Jan. 2012–Jan. 2018 who failed to respond to adalimumab after at least 3 months of treatment and started another bDMARD. The average age of the patients was 64 years, and approximately 69% were women.

Overall, the presence of ADA was not a significant predictor of a European League Against Rheumatism good response in patients who switched to another TNFi (etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, or certolizumab pegol), with sensitivity of 18% and specificity of 75%. ADA also was not predictive of response to a non-TNFi bDMARD (rituximab, tocilizumab, or abatacept), with sensitivity and specificity of 33% and 70%, respectively.

Similarly, ADL levels in patients who switched to a TNFi or non-TNFi were not significant predictors of treatment response, with sensitivities and specificities of 50% and 52%, respectively, for TNFi and 32% and 69%, respectively, for non-TNFi.

The findings that neither ADA nor ADL showed predictive values contrast with previous studies, the researchers said.

“Not only did the results of this study show no predictive values, in some analyses a prediction is found in the opposite direction of what was expected,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the random timing of sample collection, retrospective study design, and potential for misclassification of responders or nonresponders, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the blinded choice of treatment and outcome assessment, larger sample size than previous studies, and focus on adalimumab in particular, they said.

“While counterintuitive, it is hard to find an explanation for the lack of a positive finding,” they concluded.

More research is needed to confirm the predictive value of ADA and ADL, they said. In the meantime, rheumatologists should base decisions to switch patients to TNFi or non-TNFi treatment after adalimumab failure based on factors including side effects, local protocol, economical aspects, and patient preferences, they said.

The study received no external funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ulijn E et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Apr 21. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-216996.

Although the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act attempted to close the coverage gap for prescription drugs, a new study has found that yearly price increases for expensive treatments like rheumatoid arthritis biologics have kept out-of-pocket spending high for patients enrolled in Medicare Part D.

“As the coverage gap is now considered closed, our results suggest a need for out-of-pocket maximums in the catastrophic phase to limit older Americans’ yearly financial burden and allow them to better estimate their annual drug costs,” wrote coauthors Alexandra Erath and Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap lowered out-of-pocket costs as anticipated, the researchers embarked on a cross-sectional study of Medicare data from the first quarter of each calendar year from 2010 to 2019. They analyzed the costs of 17 RA biologic drug and strength combinations, calculating the median point-of-sale price per fill for each drug and adjusting for medical inflation.

From 2010 to 2019, the median price per fill increased for all 17 drugs studied. With the exception of the 100-mg/1-mL golimumab (Simponi) autoinjector, every drug that had been on the market for 5 years or longer had a price increase of more than 20%. For the six drugs that have been on the market since 2010 – 200 mg of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), 25 mg of etanercept (Enbrel), 50 mg of etanercept, 20 mg/0.4 mL of adalimumab (Humira), 40 mg/0.8 mL of adalimumab, and 50 mg/0.5 mL of golimumab – the median list price increased by a mean of 160% (standard deviation [SD], 17%; range, 136%-180%).

Mean (SD) annual out-of-pocket spending for those six drugs did decrease from $6,108 (SD, $234; range, $5,647-6,282) in 2010 to $4,801 (SD, $620; range, $3,594-$5,196) in 2019. However, the most significant decrease actually occurred between 2010 and 2011, when out-of-pocket spending dropped to $4,026 because the Affordable Care Act’s 50% manufacturer rebate for brand-name drugs filled in the coverage gap. This meant there was actually a mean increase of 19% in out-of-pocket costs from 2011 to 2019.

“This is the same story as the EpiPen,” said Maria Greenwald, MD, of Desert Medical Advances in Palm Desert, Calif., in an interview. “Patients have to have it, so you’re going to pay $600 even if you used to pay $50. Why do pharmaceutical companies keep raising their prices? Because they can. There’s no cap on list prices. And these drugs are miracles. They’re the difference between a high quality of life and being bound to a wheelchair. These patients don’t sleep without them. They’ll do whatever they can to pay for them, and so the prices continue to go up.”

This study reinforces the need for physicians to advocate for affordable biologics across the board, wrote Joel Lexchin, MD, of York University in Toronto in an accompanying editorial (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4753).

“Price increases for biologics do not only affect patients with rheumatologic conditions,” Dr. Lexchin noted, citing how the cost of multiple sclerosis therapies increased by thousands of dollars from the mid-1990s to 2013. In addition, although biologics make up a single-digit percentage of prescriptions in the United States, he highlighted that “they are responsible for $120 billion or 37% of net drug spending and, since 2014, for 93% of the overall growth in total spending.”

When it comes to potential solutions, he said that Medicare should negotiate directly with drug companies, that substitutions with biosimilars should become mandatory whenever possible, and that pharmaceutical companies should publicly validate their alleged research and development expenses. “Biologics can be transformational treatments,” he wrote, “but only if they are affordable at both the individual and societal levels.”

The authors shared their study’s potential limitations, including relying on list prices that do not factor in rebates and focusing on a single biologic filled every month rather than all treatments filled under Medicare, which could “result in our underestimating out-of-pocket spending by patients.” In addition, although a growing RA biosimilar market could increase price competition and lower costs, they added that progress in that area is limited by “aggressive litigation by the biologic manufacturers and an insufficient number of competitors to markedly affect price.”

The study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

SOURCE: Erath A et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3969.

Although the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act attempted to close the coverage gap for prescription drugs, a new study has found that yearly price increases for expensive treatments like rheumatoid arthritis biologics have kept out-of-pocket spending high for patients enrolled in Medicare Part D.

“As the coverage gap is now considered closed, our results suggest a need for out-of-pocket maximums in the catastrophic phase to limit older Americans’ yearly financial burden and allow them to better estimate their annual drug costs,” wrote coauthors Alexandra Erath and Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap lowered out-of-pocket costs as anticipated, the researchers embarked on a cross-sectional study of Medicare data from the first quarter of each calendar year from 2010 to 2019. They analyzed the costs of 17 RA biologic drug and strength combinations, calculating the median point-of-sale price per fill for each drug and adjusting for medical inflation.

From 2010 to 2019, the median price per fill increased for all 17 drugs studied. With the exception of the 100-mg/1-mL golimumab (Simponi) autoinjector, every drug that had been on the market for 5 years or longer had a price increase of more than 20%. For the six drugs that have been on the market since 2010 – 200 mg of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), 25 mg of etanercept (Enbrel), 50 mg of etanercept, 20 mg/0.4 mL of adalimumab (Humira), 40 mg/0.8 mL of adalimumab, and 50 mg/0.5 mL of golimumab – the median list price increased by a mean of 160% (standard deviation [SD], 17%; range, 136%-180%).

Mean (SD) annual out-of-pocket spending for those six drugs did decrease from $6,108 (SD, $234; range, $5,647-6,282) in 2010 to $4,801 (SD, $620; range, $3,594-$5,196) in 2019. However, the most significant decrease actually occurred between 2010 and 2011, when out-of-pocket spending dropped to $4,026 because the Affordable Care Act’s 50% manufacturer rebate for brand-name drugs filled in the coverage gap. This meant there was actually a mean increase of 19% in out-of-pocket costs from 2011 to 2019.

“This is the same story as the EpiPen,” said Maria Greenwald, MD, of Desert Medical Advances in Palm Desert, Calif., in an interview. “Patients have to have it, so you’re going to pay $600 even if you used to pay $50. Why do pharmaceutical companies keep raising their prices? Because they can. There’s no cap on list prices. And these drugs are miracles. They’re the difference between a high quality of life and being bound to a wheelchair. These patients don’t sleep without them. They’ll do whatever they can to pay for them, and so the prices continue to go up.”

This study reinforces the need for physicians to advocate for affordable biologics across the board, wrote Joel Lexchin, MD, of York University in Toronto in an accompanying editorial (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4753).

“Price increases for biologics do not only affect patients with rheumatologic conditions,” Dr. Lexchin noted, citing how the cost of multiple sclerosis therapies increased by thousands of dollars from the mid-1990s to 2013. In addition, although biologics make up a single-digit percentage of prescriptions in the United States, he highlighted that “they are responsible for $120 billion or 37% of net drug spending and, since 2014, for 93% of the overall growth in total spending.”

When it comes to potential solutions, he said that Medicare should negotiate directly with drug companies, that substitutions with biosimilars should become mandatory whenever possible, and that pharmaceutical companies should publicly validate their alleged research and development expenses. “Biologics can be transformational treatments,” he wrote, “but only if they are affordable at both the individual and societal levels.”

The authors shared their study’s potential limitations, including relying on list prices that do not factor in rebates and focusing on a single biologic filled every month rather than all treatments filled under Medicare, which could “result in our underestimating out-of-pocket spending by patients.” In addition, although a growing RA biosimilar market could increase price competition and lower costs, they added that progress in that area is limited by “aggressive litigation by the biologic manufacturers and an insufficient number of competitors to markedly affect price.”

The study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

SOURCE: Erath A et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3969.

Although the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act attempted to close the coverage gap for prescription drugs, a new study has found that yearly price increases for expensive treatments like rheumatoid arthritis biologics have kept out-of-pocket spending high for patients enrolled in Medicare Part D.

“As the coverage gap is now considered closed, our results suggest a need for out-of-pocket maximums in the catastrophic phase to limit older Americans’ yearly financial burden and allow them to better estimate their annual drug costs,” wrote coauthors Alexandra Erath and Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

To determine if closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap lowered out-of-pocket costs as anticipated, the researchers embarked on a cross-sectional study of Medicare data from the first quarter of each calendar year from 2010 to 2019. They analyzed the costs of 17 RA biologic drug and strength combinations, calculating the median point-of-sale price per fill for each drug and adjusting for medical inflation.

From 2010 to 2019, the median price per fill increased for all 17 drugs studied. With the exception of the 100-mg/1-mL golimumab (Simponi) autoinjector, every drug that had been on the market for 5 years or longer had a price increase of more than 20%. For the six drugs that have been on the market since 2010 – 200 mg of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), 25 mg of etanercept (Enbrel), 50 mg of etanercept, 20 mg/0.4 mL of adalimumab (Humira), 40 mg/0.8 mL of adalimumab, and 50 mg/0.5 mL of golimumab – the median list price increased by a mean of 160% (standard deviation [SD], 17%; range, 136%-180%).

Mean (SD) annual out-of-pocket spending for those six drugs did decrease from $6,108 (SD, $234; range, $5,647-6,282) in 2010 to $4,801 (SD, $620; range, $3,594-$5,196) in 2019. However, the most significant decrease actually occurred between 2010 and 2011, when out-of-pocket spending dropped to $4,026 because the Affordable Care Act’s 50% manufacturer rebate for brand-name drugs filled in the coverage gap. This meant there was actually a mean increase of 19% in out-of-pocket costs from 2011 to 2019.

“This is the same story as the EpiPen,” said Maria Greenwald, MD, of Desert Medical Advances in Palm Desert, Calif., in an interview. “Patients have to have it, so you’re going to pay $600 even if you used to pay $50. Why do pharmaceutical companies keep raising their prices? Because they can. There’s no cap on list prices. And these drugs are miracles. They’re the difference between a high quality of life and being bound to a wheelchair. These patients don’t sleep without them. They’ll do whatever they can to pay for them, and so the prices continue to go up.”

This study reinforces the need for physicians to advocate for affordable biologics across the board, wrote Joel Lexchin, MD, of York University in Toronto in an accompanying editorial (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.4753).

“Price increases for biologics do not only affect patients with rheumatologic conditions,” Dr. Lexchin noted, citing how the cost of multiple sclerosis therapies increased by thousands of dollars from the mid-1990s to 2013. In addition, although biologics make up a single-digit percentage of prescriptions in the United States, he highlighted that “they are responsible for $120 billion or 37% of net drug spending and, since 2014, for 93% of the overall growth in total spending.”

When it comes to potential solutions, he said that Medicare should negotiate directly with drug companies, that substitutions with biosimilars should become mandatory whenever possible, and that pharmaceutical companies should publicly validate their alleged research and development expenses. “Biologics can be transformational treatments,” he wrote, “but only if they are affordable at both the individual and societal levels.”

The authors shared their study’s potential limitations, including relying on list prices that do not factor in rebates and focusing on a single biologic filled every month rather than all treatments filled under Medicare, which could “result in our underestimating out-of-pocket spending by patients.” In addition, although a growing RA biosimilar market could increase price competition and lower costs, they added that progress in that area is limited by “aggressive litigation by the biologic manufacturers and an insufficient number of competitors to markedly affect price.”

The study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

SOURCE: Erath A et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3969.

MAUI, HAWAII – Results of a carefully conducted real-world study of adherence to oral methotrexate in patients with RA were “kind of scary,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“At 24 weeks, adherence was only 75%. And these were people who knew they were being monitored, so this is the best of the best. And yet less than 20% took the drug perfectly, meaning they took every dose as it was supposed to be,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and RWCS program director.

“Adherence to methotrexate is really not very good. This is our cornerstone drug – methotrexate – and I think it certainly applies to other medications that we’re using,” he added.

He and his fellow panelist John J. Cush, MD, discussed the implications of this recent study, led by Kaleb Michaud, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The methotrexate adherence study included 60 patients with RA whose use of the disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) over 24 weeks was monitored via the electronic Medication Event Monitoring System. These were motivated patients seen in routine clinical practice: They were participants in Forward, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and they understood that their use of methotrexate was being monitored.

Among the key findings: Patients on average took their weekly dose as directed for a total of 18 of the 24 weeks, although adherence decreased over time. Overall, 13% of participants missed 1 week, and 68% skipped 2 or more weeks. There was no significant difference in methotrexate adherence between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, nor between those on methotrexate monotherapy versus those on additional medication. Patient demographics and RA severity were similar between patients who missed taking their methotrexate for 2 weeks or more and those who missed fewer or no doses.

Higher Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity scores were associated with correct dosing. So was being unemployed, having no prior conventional DMARD experience, and having less disability. A higher baseline score on the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire Specific-Necessity subscale, which indicates stronger belief in the necessity of the medication, were associated with greater likelihood of appropriate dosing, while lower scores were linked with more weeks of early dosing. However, the other elements of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire weren’t significantly associated with adherence.

“This is a big problem. A lot of factors go into medication nonadherence. The solution has to begin with your relationship with the patient. If you want people to trust you, you’re going to have to work at that,” observed Dr. Cush, who is professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and director of clinical rheumatology at the Baylor Research Institute.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, said that widespread suboptimal adherence to oral methotrexate has important implications for clinical trials. Often the placebo response rate in a randomized trial where the control group is on background methotrexate is so unexpectedly high that the potential efficacy of the active drug is masked; in such situations, it’s quite possible that patients who previously weren’t taking their methotrexate consistently start doing so when they join a closely supervised study, with a resultant inflated placebo response rate, he said.

One audience member who sees lots of medication adherence issues in his practice suggested that it might be time to become more aggressive in using intravenous infusion therapy instead of subcutaneously administered agents in patients with active RA and adherence problems.

“Maybe that’s why rituximab does so well in the clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as consultants to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Results of a carefully conducted real-world study of adherence to oral methotrexate in patients with RA were “kind of scary,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“At 24 weeks, adherence was only 75%. And these were people who knew they were being monitored, so this is the best of the best. And yet less than 20% took the drug perfectly, meaning they took every dose as it was supposed to be,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and RWCS program director.

“Adherence to methotrexate is really not very good. This is our cornerstone drug – methotrexate – and I think it certainly applies to other medications that we’re using,” he added.

He and his fellow panelist John J. Cush, MD, discussed the implications of this recent study, led by Kaleb Michaud, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The methotrexate adherence study included 60 patients with RA whose use of the disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) over 24 weeks was monitored via the electronic Medication Event Monitoring System. These were motivated patients seen in routine clinical practice: They were participants in Forward, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and they understood that their use of methotrexate was being monitored.

Among the key findings: Patients on average took their weekly dose as directed for a total of 18 of the 24 weeks, although adherence decreased over time. Overall, 13% of participants missed 1 week, and 68% skipped 2 or more weeks. There was no significant difference in methotrexate adherence between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, nor between those on methotrexate monotherapy versus those on additional medication. Patient demographics and RA severity were similar between patients who missed taking their methotrexate for 2 weeks or more and those who missed fewer or no doses.

Higher Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity scores were associated with correct dosing. So was being unemployed, having no prior conventional DMARD experience, and having less disability. A higher baseline score on the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire Specific-Necessity subscale, which indicates stronger belief in the necessity of the medication, were associated with greater likelihood of appropriate dosing, while lower scores were linked with more weeks of early dosing. However, the other elements of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire weren’t significantly associated with adherence.

“This is a big problem. A lot of factors go into medication nonadherence. The solution has to begin with your relationship with the patient. If you want people to trust you, you’re going to have to work at that,” observed Dr. Cush, who is professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and director of clinical rheumatology at the Baylor Research Institute.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, said that widespread suboptimal adherence to oral methotrexate has important implications for clinical trials. Often the placebo response rate in a randomized trial where the control group is on background methotrexate is so unexpectedly high that the potential efficacy of the active drug is masked; in such situations, it’s quite possible that patients who previously weren’t taking their methotrexate consistently start doing so when they join a closely supervised study, with a resultant inflated placebo response rate, he said.

One audience member who sees lots of medication adherence issues in his practice suggested that it might be time to become more aggressive in using intravenous infusion therapy instead of subcutaneously administered agents in patients with active RA and adherence problems.

“Maybe that’s why rituximab does so well in the clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as consultants to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Results of a carefully conducted real-world study of adherence to oral methotrexate in patients with RA were “kind of scary,” Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“At 24 weeks, adherence was only 75%. And these were people who knew they were being monitored, so this is the best of the best. And yet less than 20% took the drug perfectly, meaning they took every dose as it was supposed to be,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and RWCS program director.

“Adherence to methotrexate is really not very good. This is our cornerstone drug – methotrexate – and I think it certainly applies to other medications that we’re using,” he added.

He and his fellow panelist John J. Cush, MD, discussed the implications of this recent study, led by Kaleb Michaud, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

The methotrexate adherence study included 60 patients with RA whose use of the disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) over 24 weeks was monitored via the electronic Medication Event Monitoring System. These were motivated patients seen in routine clinical practice: They were participants in Forward, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and they understood that their use of methotrexate was being monitored.

Among the key findings: Patients on average took their weekly dose as directed for a total of 18 of the 24 weeks, although adherence decreased over time. Overall, 13% of participants missed 1 week, and 68% skipped 2 or more weeks. There was no significant difference in methotrexate adherence between biologic-naive and -experienced patients, nor between those on methotrexate monotherapy versus those on additional medication. Patient demographics and RA severity were similar between patients who missed taking their methotrexate for 2 weeks or more and those who missed fewer or no doses.

Higher Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity scores were associated with correct dosing. So was being unemployed, having no prior conventional DMARD experience, and having less disability. A higher baseline score on the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire Specific-Necessity subscale, which indicates stronger belief in the necessity of the medication, were associated with greater likelihood of appropriate dosing, while lower scores were linked with more weeks of early dosing. However, the other elements of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire weren’t significantly associated with adherence.

“This is a big problem. A lot of factors go into medication nonadherence. The solution has to begin with your relationship with the patient. If you want people to trust you, you’re going to have to work at that,” observed Dr. Cush, who is professor of medicine and rheumatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and director of clinical rheumatology at the Baylor Research Institute.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, Dallas, said that widespread suboptimal adherence to oral methotrexate has important implications for clinical trials. Often the placebo response rate in a randomized trial where the control group is on background methotrexate is so unexpectedly high that the potential efficacy of the active drug is masked; in such situations, it’s quite possible that patients who previously weren’t taking their methotrexate consistently start doing so when they join a closely supervised study, with a resultant inflated placebo response rate, he said.

One audience member who sees lots of medication adherence issues in his practice suggested that it might be time to become more aggressive in using intravenous infusion therapy instead of subcutaneously administered agents in patients with active RA and adherence problems.

“Maybe that’s why rituximab does so well in the clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as consultants to numerous pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results from the global and UCSF registries

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

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

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

EULAR registry results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results from the global and UCSF registries

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

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

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

EULAR registry results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Results from the global and UCSF registries

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

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

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

EULAR registry results

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

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

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

MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.

Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction

Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.

IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.

Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.

“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.

Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.

Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.

Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
 

Management of reactions

A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.

The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.

If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.

In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).

If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.

For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.

The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
 

Top offending monoclonal antibodies

Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.

Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.

“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.

Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction

Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.

IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.

Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.

“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.

Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.

Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.

Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
 

Management of reactions

A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.

The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.

If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.

In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).

If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.

For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.

The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
 

Top offending monoclonal antibodies

Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.

Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.

“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.

Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
 

Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction

Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.

IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.

Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.

“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.

Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.

Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.

Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
 

Management of reactions

A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.

The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.

If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.

In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).

If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.

For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.

The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
 

Top offending monoclonal antibodies

Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.

Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.

“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

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

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

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

An examination of pharmacy data

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

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

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

VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

European governments incentivize use of biosimilars

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

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

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

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

egreb@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

An examination of pharmacy data

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

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

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

VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

European governments incentivize use of biosimilars

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

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

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

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

egreb@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

An examination of pharmacy data

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

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

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

VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

European governments incentivize use of biosimilars

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

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

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

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

egreb@mdedge.com

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

MAUI, HAWAII – Filgotinib, the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor now under Food and Drug Administration review for the treatment of RA, has a better safety profile than some of the approved oral JAK inhibitors, but that’s unlikely to save it from being saddled with a black-box safety warning label, experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“There’s probably a class label out there,” according to Mark C. Genovese, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He cited the example of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), approved last year as the third oral JAK inhibitor for RA. Even though venous thromboembolic (VTE) events weren’t seen with any significantly increased frequency, compared with placebo, in the upadacitinib development program – unlike for the earlier-approved tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and baricitinib (Olumiant) –the FDA nevertheless required that upadacitinib’s product labeling include this black-box warning: “Thrombosis, including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and arterial thrombosis, have occurred in patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors used to treat inflammatory conditions.”

“I would fully expect that there’ll be a similar label in the filgotinib package insert saying that VTEs have been seen in other members of the class,” he predicted.

His copanelist Roy Fleischmann, MD, noted that filgotinib displayed a clean long-term safety profile in a pooled analysis of the 24-week results in the 2,088 filgotinib-treated participants in all phase 3 clinical trials for RA. For example, the incidence of herpes zoster in that large treated population was a mere 0.1%.

“Herpes zoster is almost nonexistent across the program,” observed Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

That’s consistent with what he’s heard from Japanese investigators about their experience. They tell him that in their studies the incidence of herpes zoster with filgotinib is five times less than with other JAK inhibitors.

The long-term pooled phase 3 filgotinib safety data also show less than a 0.1% incidence of adjudicated VTE/pulmonary embolism through 24 weeks. That’s a substantially lower rate than with tofacitinib or baricitinib, he noted.

The two rheumatologists, long-time observers of the FDA regulatory scene, stressed that they have no inside information regarding what the agency will do about filgotinib. It seems beyond doubt that the JAK inhibitor will be approved. But an open question of practical importance to clinicians is whether the agency will approve only the 100-mg dose or the 200-mg dose as well. The panelists agreed that having access to both would be advantageous since the clinical trials data indicate the higher dose is more effective and this greater efficacy doesn’t come at a cost of additional safety issues.

“If the 100 mg is sufficient, that’s great, but the reality is if you want to push to low disease activity or remission, the 200 mg seems to work better, particularly in patients who’ve already failed TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors or other biologics,” Dr. Genovese said. “If you’re not having additional safety concerns and you can get additional efficacy, I love the idea of having flexibility.”

Dr. Fleischmann is skeptical that the regulators will see things that way.

“There is a real risk that the FDA will do what it’s done before and say: ‘Well, the 200 works and the 100 works, so we’re going to approve the lower dose.’ But there doesn’t appear to be a big safety difference between 100 and 200. So I can see why they would approve the two doses, but I think that’d be unusual,” according to the rheumatologist.
 

The RA pipeline

The two speakers also highlighted several agents with novel mechanisms of action moving through the RA developmental pipeline, including olokizumab, otilimab, fenebrutinib, and a promising oral selective interleukin-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor (IRAK4).

Olokizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody targets IL-6. It has a different mechanism of action than the two commercially available IL-6 inhibitors approved for RA, tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), in that olokizumab uniquely targets the IL-6 ligand.

At the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Genovese presented the positive findings of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial of olokizumab in 428 RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate. The primary outcome, an ACR 20 response at 12 weeks, occurred in 25.9% of patients on placebo, 63.6% with 64 mg of olokizumab given subcutaneously every 2 weeks, and 70.4% with 64 mg every 4 weeks, with all participants on background methotrexate. An ACR 50 response at week 24 occurred in 7.7%, 42.7%, and 48.6%, respectively, with an acceptable side effect profile.

This was the first phase 3 trial to be presented from a large, ongoing phase 3 olokizumab developmental program for a variety of diseases.

“The results certainly support the idea that a 4-week regimen would probably be quite useful with this medication, although we’ll have to see what happens with the remaining phase 3 trials,” Dr. Genovese said.

Dr. Fleischmann posed a question: Do we really need a third IL-6 inhibitor?

That would make for a crowded field, Dr. Genovese agreed, adding that grabbing a reasonable market share for olokizumab may come down to cost, formulary access, and the convenience factor of once-monthly dosing. Whether the biologic’s unique mechanism of action in blocking the IL-6 ligand makes any practical difference in outcomes is unknown.

IRAK4 inhibitor: PF-06650833 is an oral selective reversible inhibitor of IRAK4, a key signaling kinase for IL-1 and toll-like receptors.

“This should be a really good drug for IL-1-mediated diseases,” according to Dr. Fleischmann.

In a phase 2b, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week study featuring tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily as an active comparator, the IRAK4 inhibitor exhibited dose-dependent efficacy for the primary endpoint of improvement from baseline in Simple Disease Activity Index score, compared with placebo. The same was true for the secondary endpoint, change over time in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). The trial results were also presented at the 2019 ACR annual meeting.

“This is a drug they should probably take forward and see how far it goes in RA,” he said.

Dr. Genovese concurred.

“We’re still trying to figure out how we can put together rational combinations in RA, and this might be something that could be considered as a combination play. In fact, Pfizer has already teed up a study looking at a JAK inhibitor/IRAK4 combination. The question will be whether this is a standalone or has an opportunity to be part of a combination approach,” the rheumatologist said.

Otilimab: This monoclonal antibody is a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor inhibitor. In a secondary analysis of the BAROQUE trial, a phase 2b, 50-week study in RA inadequately responsive to methotrexate, otilimab demonstrated an impressive effect in terms of pain reduction. This new analysis, which was first presented at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, showed that, at week 12, a minimum clinically important difference in pain was achieved in 29% of placebo-treated controls, compared with 65%-75% of patients on low to higher doses of otilimab.

“The question is: Is this pain effect unique to this molecule, this pathway, or is it a simple reflection of the treated patient population?” Dr. Genovese commented. “It’s an interesting molecule. It’s being developed in RA, and it might have unique benefits on the pain side.”

A tale of two BTK inhibitors: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) is an intracellular kinase viewed as a promising target in autoimmune disease. Fenebrutinib is an oral, noncovalent, reversible, and highly selective BTK inhibitor that performed well in a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with adalimumab as an active comparator in 480 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in one branch, and in 98 patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy in the other. All subjects were on background methotrexate. (The study results were published April 9 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.)

In the group with a prior inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, the ACR 50 response rate at 12 weeks was 25% in the group on fenebrutinib at 200 mg twice daily, significantly better than the 12% rate in placebo. And there were favorable effects on biomarkers: The reduction in erythrocyte sedimentation rate from baseline was nearly twice as great with fenebrutinib, the drop in CRP was nearly three times greater than with placebo, and there was also a significantly greater decrease over time in DAS28-CRP.

In the methotrexate-inadequate responders, the ACR50 rates were 28% and 35% with the BTK inhibitor at 150 and 200 mg once daily, respectively, compared with 15% in controls.

The safety picture was encouraging, with similarly low adverse event rates across all treatment arms.

In contrast to the fenebrutinib experience, Dr. Genovese was lead investigator in a 250-patient, phase 2 study of another oral BTK inhibitor, poseltinib, which differs from fenebrutinib in that it is an irreversible covalent inhibitor. It was a failed study, with no significant difference between poseltinib and placebo in ACR 20 response at 12 weeks. It’s unclear whether the problem was insufficient dosing or that poseltinib is a failed molecule, perhaps because of its irreversible covalent binding to BTK, he said.
 

Other notable failures

The spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk) inhibitor known as GS-9876 showed no clinical efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial in 83 RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate or a biologic DMARD.

“This is like the fourth Syk inhibitor that’s failed. Syk inhibition is not sick, Syk is dead,” Dr. Fleischmann declared.

Cadherin-11 is an inflammatory cytokine expressed on fibroblasts in RA joints. In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial in 109 patients with RA inadequately responsive to TNF inhibitors, RG6125, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against cadherin-11, failed to outperform placebo.

“It should have worked. It didn’t. So the question is whether this pathway is not an appropriate pathway, or the molecule was not quite the right molecule. I have a feeling it was possibly not the right molecule and the pathway may be viable,” according to Dr. Fleischmann.

He reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Genovese also reported financial relationships with more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Filgotinib, the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor now under Food and Drug Administration review for the treatment of RA, has a better safety profile than some of the approved oral JAK inhibitors, but that’s unlikely to save it from being saddled with a black-box safety warning label, experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“There’s probably a class label out there,” according to Mark C. Genovese, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He cited the example of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), approved last year as the third oral JAK inhibitor for RA. Even though venous thromboembolic (VTE) events weren’t seen with any significantly increased frequency, compared with placebo, in the upadacitinib development program – unlike for the earlier-approved tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and baricitinib (Olumiant) –the FDA nevertheless required that upadacitinib’s product labeling include this black-box warning: “Thrombosis, including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and arterial thrombosis, have occurred in patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors used to treat inflammatory conditions.”

“I would fully expect that there’ll be a similar label in the filgotinib package insert saying that VTEs have been seen in other members of the class,” he predicted.

His copanelist Roy Fleischmann, MD, noted that filgotinib displayed a clean long-term safety profile in a pooled analysis of the 24-week results in the 2,088 filgotinib-treated participants in all phase 3 clinical trials for RA. For example, the incidence of herpes zoster in that large treated population was a mere 0.1%.

“Herpes zoster is almost nonexistent across the program,” observed Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

That’s consistent with what he’s heard from Japanese investigators about their experience. They tell him that in their studies the incidence of herpes zoster with filgotinib is five times less than with other JAK inhibitors.

The long-term pooled phase 3 filgotinib safety data also show less than a 0.1% incidence of adjudicated VTE/pulmonary embolism through 24 weeks. That’s a substantially lower rate than with tofacitinib or baricitinib, he noted.

The two rheumatologists, long-time observers of the FDA regulatory scene, stressed that they have no inside information regarding what the agency will do about filgotinib. It seems beyond doubt that the JAK inhibitor will be approved. But an open question of practical importance to clinicians is whether the agency will approve only the 100-mg dose or the 200-mg dose as well. The panelists agreed that having access to both would be advantageous since the clinical trials data indicate the higher dose is more effective and this greater efficacy doesn’t come at a cost of additional safety issues.

“If the 100 mg is sufficient, that’s great, but the reality is if you want to push to low disease activity or remission, the 200 mg seems to work better, particularly in patients who’ve already failed TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors or other biologics,” Dr. Genovese said. “If you’re not having additional safety concerns and you can get additional efficacy, I love the idea of having flexibility.”

Dr. Fleischmann is skeptical that the regulators will see things that way.

“There is a real risk that the FDA will do what it’s done before and say: ‘Well, the 200 works and the 100 works, so we’re going to approve the lower dose.’ But there doesn’t appear to be a big safety difference between 100 and 200. So I can see why they would approve the two doses, but I think that’d be unusual,” according to the rheumatologist.
 

The RA pipeline

The two speakers also highlighted several agents with novel mechanisms of action moving through the RA developmental pipeline, including olokizumab, otilimab, fenebrutinib, and a promising oral selective interleukin-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor (IRAK4).

Olokizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody targets IL-6. It has a different mechanism of action than the two commercially available IL-6 inhibitors approved for RA, tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), in that olokizumab uniquely targets the IL-6 ligand.

At the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Genovese presented the positive findings of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial of olokizumab in 428 RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate. The primary outcome, an ACR 20 response at 12 weeks, occurred in 25.9% of patients on placebo, 63.6% with 64 mg of olokizumab given subcutaneously every 2 weeks, and 70.4% with 64 mg every 4 weeks, with all participants on background methotrexate. An ACR 50 response at week 24 occurred in 7.7%, 42.7%, and 48.6%, respectively, with an acceptable side effect profile.

This was the first phase 3 trial to be presented from a large, ongoing phase 3 olokizumab developmental program for a variety of diseases.

“The results certainly support the idea that a 4-week regimen would probably be quite useful with this medication, although we’ll have to see what happens with the remaining phase 3 trials,” Dr. Genovese said.

Dr. Fleischmann posed a question: Do we really need a third IL-6 inhibitor?

That would make for a crowded field, Dr. Genovese agreed, adding that grabbing a reasonable market share for olokizumab may come down to cost, formulary access, and the convenience factor of once-monthly dosing. Whether the biologic’s unique mechanism of action in blocking the IL-6 ligand makes any practical difference in outcomes is unknown.

IRAK4 inhibitor: PF-06650833 is an oral selective reversible inhibitor of IRAK4, a key signaling kinase for IL-1 and toll-like receptors.

“This should be a really good drug for IL-1-mediated diseases,” according to Dr. Fleischmann.

In a phase 2b, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week study featuring tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily as an active comparator, the IRAK4 inhibitor exhibited dose-dependent efficacy for the primary endpoint of improvement from baseline in Simple Disease Activity Index score, compared with placebo. The same was true for the secondary endpoint, change over time in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). The trial results were also presented at the 2019 ACR annual meeting.

“This is a drug they should probably take forward and see how far it goes in RA,” he said.

Dr. Genovese concurred.

“We’re still trying to figure out how we can put together rational combinations in RA, and this might be something that could be considered as a combination play. In fact, Pfizer has already teed up a study looking at a JAK inhibitor/IRAK4 combination. The question will be whether this is a standalone or has an opportunity to be part of a combination approach,” the rheumatologist said.

Otilimab: This monoclonal antibody is a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor inhibitor. In a secondary analysis of the BAROQUE trial, a phase 2b, 50-week study in RA inadequately responsive to methotrexate, otilimab demonstrated an impressive effect in terms of pain reduction. This new analysis, which was first presented at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, showed that, at week 12, a minimum clinically important difference in pain was achieved in 29% of placebo-treated controls, compared with 65%-75% of patients on low to higher doses of otilimab.

“The question is: Is this pain effect unique to this molecule, this pathway, or is it a simple reflection of the treated patient population?” Dr. Genovese commented. “It’s an interesting molecule. It’s being developed in RA, and it might have unique benefits on the pain side.”

A tale of two BTK inhibitors: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) is an intracellular kinase viewed as a promising target in autoimmune disease. Fenebrutinib is an oral, noncovalent, reversible, and highly selective BTK inhibitor that performed well in a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with adalimumab as an active comparator in 480 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in one branch, and in 98 patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy in the other. All subjects were on background methotrexate. (The study results were published April 9 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.)

In the group with a prior inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, the ACR 50 response rate at 12 weeks was 25% in the group on fenebrutinib at 200 mg twice daily, significantly better than the 12% rate in placebo. And there were favorable effects on biomarkers: The reduction in erythrocyte sedimentation rate from baseline was nearly twice as great with fenebrutinib, the drop in CRP was nearly three times greater than with placebo, and there was also a significantly greater decrease over time in DAS28-CRP.

In the methotrexate-inadequate responders, the ACR50 rates were 28% and 35% with the BTK inhibitor at 150 and 200 mg once daily, respectively, compared with 15% in controls.

The safety picture was encouraging, with similarly low adverse event rates across all treatment arms.

In contrast to the fenebrutinib experience, Dr. Genovese was lead investigator in a 250-patient, phase 2 study of another oral BTK inhibitor, poseltinib, which differs from fenebrutinib in that it is an irreversible covalent inhibitor. It was a failed study, with no significant difference between poseltinib and placebo in ACR 20 response at 12 weeks. It’s unclear whether the problem was insufficient dosing or that poseltinib is a failed molecule, perhaps because of its irreversible covalent binding to BTK, he said.
 

Other notable failures

The spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk) inhibitor known as GS-9876 showed no clinical efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial in 83 RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate or a biologic DMARD.

“This is like the fourth Syk inhibitor that’s failed. Syk inhibition is not sick, Syk is dead,” Dr. Fleischmann declared.

Cadherin-11 is an inflammatory cytokine expressed on fibroblasts in RA joints. In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial in 109 patients with RA inadequately responsive to TNF inhibitors, RG6125, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against cadherin-11, failed to outperform placebo.

“It should have worked. It didn’t. So the question is whether this pathway is not an appropriate pathway, or the molecule was not quite the right molecule. I have a feeling it was possibly not the right molecule and the pathway may be viable,” according to Dr. Fleischmann.

He reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Genovese also reported financial relationships with more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Filgotinib, the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor now under Food and Drug Administration review for the treatment of RA, has a better safety profile than some of the approved oral JAK inhibitors, but that’s unlikely to save it from being saddled with a black-box safety warning label, experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“There’s probably a class label out there,” according to Mark C. Genovese, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He cited the example of upadacitinib (Rinvoq), approved last year as the third oral JAK inhibitor for RA. Even though venous thromboembolic (VTE) events weren’t seen with any significantly increased frequency, compared with placebo, in the upadacitinib development program – unlike for the earlier-approved tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and baricitinib (Olumiant) –the FDA nevertheless required that upadacitinib’s product labeling include this black-box warning: “Thrombosis, including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and arterial thrombosis, have occurred in patients treated with Janus kinase inhibitors used to treat inflammatory conditions.”

“I would fully expect that there’ll be a similar label in the filgotinib package insert saying that VTEs have been seen in other members of the class,” he predicted.

His copanelist Roy Fleischmann, MD, noted that filgotinib displayed a clean long-term safety profile in a pooled analysis of the 24-week results in the 2,088 filgotinib-treated participants in all phase 3 clinical trials for RA. For example, the incidence of herpes zoster in that large treated population was a mere 0.1%.

“Herpes zoster is almost nonexistent across the program,” observed Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

That’s consistent with what he’s heard from Japanese investigators about their experience. They tell him that in their studies the incidence of herpes zoster with filgotinib is five times less than with other JAK inhibitors.

The long-term pooled phase 3 filgotinib safety data also show less than a 0.1% incidence of adjudicated VTE/pulmonary embolism through 24 weeks. That’s a substantially lower rate than with tofacitinib or baricitinib, he noted.

The two rheumatologists, long-time observers of the FDA regulatory scene, stressed that they have no inside information regarding what the agency will do about filgotinib. It seems beyond doubt that the JAK inhibitor will be approved. But an open question of practical importance to clinicians is whether the agency will approve only the 100-mg dose or the 200-mg dose as well. The panelists agreed that having access to both would be advantageous since the clinical trials data indicate the higher dose is more effective and this greater efficacy doesn’t come at a cost of additional safety issues.

“If the 100 mg is sufficient, that’s great, but the reality is if you want to push to low disease activity or remission, the 200 mg seems to work better, particularly in patients who’ve already failed TNF [tumor necrosis factor] inhibitors or other biologics,” Dr. Genovese said. “If you’re not having additional safety concerns and you can get additional efficacy, I love the idea of having flexibility.”

Dr. Fleischmann is skeptical that the regulators will see things that way.

“There is a real risk that the FDA will do what it’s done before and say: ‘Well, the 200 works and the 100 works, so we’re going to approve the lower dose.’ But there doesn’t appear to be a big safety difference between 100 and 200. So I can see why they would approve the two doses, but I think that’d be unusual,” according to the rheumatologist.
 

The RA pipeline

The two speakers also highlighted several agents with novel mechanisms of action moving through the RA developmental pipeline, including olokizumab, otilimab, fenebrutinib, and a promising oral selective interleukin-1 receptor–associated kinase 4 inhibitor (IRAK4).

Olokizumab: This humanized monoclonal antibody targets IL-6. It has a different mechanism of action than the two commercially available IL-6 inhibitors approved for RA, tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara), in that olokizumab uniquely targets the IL-6 ligand.

At the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Genovese presented the positive findings of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial of olokizumab in 428 RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate. The primary outcome, an ACR 20 response at 12 weeks, occurred in 25.9% of patients on placebo, 63.6% with 64 mg of olokizumab given subcutaneously every 2 weeks, and 70.4% with 64 mg every 4 weeks, with all participants on background methotrexate. An ACR 50 response at week 24 occurred in 7.7%, 42.7%, and 48.6%, respectively, with an acceptable side effect profile.

This was the first phase 3 trial to be presented from a large, ongoing phase 3 olokizumab developmental program for a variety of diseases.

“The results certainly support the idea that a 4-week regimen would probably be quite useful with this medication, although we’ll have to see what happens with the remaining phase 3 trials,” Dr. Genovese said.

Dr. Fleischmann posed a question: Do we really need a third IL-6 inhibitor?

That would make for a crowded field, Dr. Genovese agreed, adding that grabbing a reasonable market share for olokizumab may come down to cost, formulary access, and the convenience factor of once-monthly dosing. Whether the biologic’s unique mechanism of action in blocking the IL-6 ligand makes any practical difference in outcomes is unknown.

IRAK4 inhibitor: PF-06650833 is an oral selective reversible inhibitor of IRAK4, a key signaling kinase for IL-1 and toll-like receptors.

“This should be a really good drug for IL-1-mediated diseases,” according to Dr. Fleischmann.

In a phase 2b, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week study featuring tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily as an active comparator, the IRAK4 inhibitor exhibited dose-dependent efficacy for the primary endpoint of improvement from baseline in Simple Disease Activity Index score, compared with placebo. The same was true for the secondary endpoint, change over time in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). The trial results were also presented at the 2019 ACR annual meeting.

“This is a drug they should probably take forward and see how far it goes in RA,” he said.

Dr. Genovese concurred.

“We’re still trying to figure out how we can put together rational combinations in RA, and this might be something that could be considered as a combination play. In fact, Pfizer has already teed up a study looking at a JAK inhibitor/IRAK4 combination. The question will be whether this is a standalone or has an opportunity to be part of a combination approach,” the rheumatologist said.

Otilimab: This monoclonal antibody is a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor inhibitor. In a secondary analysis of the BAROQUE trial, a phase 2b, 50-week study in RA inadequately responsive to methotrexate, otilimab demonstrated an impressive effect in terms of pain reduction. This new analysis, which was first presented at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, showed that, at week 12, a minimum clinically important difference in pain was achieved in 29% of placebo-treated controls, compared with 65%-75% of patients on low to higher doses of otilimab.

“The question is: Is this pain effect unique to this molecule, this pathway, or is it a simple reflection of the treated patient population?” Dr. Genovese commented. “It’s an interesting molecule. It’s being developed in RA, and it might have unique benefits on the pain side.”

A tale of two BTK inhibitors: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) is an intracellular kinase viewed as a promising target in autoimmune disease. Fenebrutinib is an oral, noncovalent, reversible, and highly selective BTK inhibitor that performed well in a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with adalimumab as an active comparator in 480 patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in one branch, and in 98 patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy in the other. All subjects were on background methotrexate. (The study results were published April 9 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.)

In the group with a prior inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, the ACR 50 response rate at 12 weeks was 25% in the group on fenebrutinib at 200 mg twice daily, significantly better than the 12% rate in placebo. And there were favorable effects on biomarkers: The reduction in erythrocyte sedimentation rate from baseline was nearly twice as great with fenebrutinib, the drop in CRP was nearly three times greater than with placebo, and there was also a significantly greater decrease over time in DAS28-CRP.

In the methotrexate-inadequate responders, the ACR50 rates were 28% and 35% with the BTK inhibitor at 150 and 200 mg once daily, respectively, compared with 15% in controls.

The safety picture was encouraging, with similarly low adverse event rates across all treatment arms.

In contrast to the fenebrutinib experience, Dr. Genovese was lead investigator in a 250-patient, phase 2 study of another oral BTK inhibitor, poseltinib, which differs from fenebrutinib in that it is an irreversible covalent inhibitor. It was a failed study, with no significant difference between poseltinib and placebo in ACR 20 response at 12 weeks. It’s unclear whether the problem was insufficient dosing or that poseltinib is a failed molecule, perhaps because of its irreversible covalent binding to BTK, he said.
 

Other notable failures

The spleen tyrosine kinase (Syk) inhibitor known as GS-9876 showed no clinical efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial in 83 RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate or a biologic DMARD.

“This is like the fourth Syk inhibitor that’s failed. Syk inhibition is not sick, Syk is dead,” Dr. Fleischmann declared.

Cadherin-11 is an inflammatory cytokine expressed on fibroblasts in RA joints. In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized trial in 109 patients with RA inadequately responsive to TNF inhibitors, RG6125, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against cadherin-11, failed to outperform placebo.

“It should have worked. It didn’t. So the question is whether this pathway is not an appropriate pathway, or the molecule was not quite the right molecule. I have a feeling it was possibly not the right molecule and the pathway may be viable,” according to Dr. Fleischmann.

He reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Genovese also reported financial relationships with more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
 

bjancin@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

dbrunk@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

dbrunk@mdedge.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Patients being treated for RA or spondyloarthritis who develop symptoms of COVID-19 do not appear to be at higher risk of respiratory or life-threatening complications, results from a new study in Italy suggest.

Such patients, the study authors wrote, do not need to be taken off their immunosuppressive medications if they develop COVID-19 symptoms.

In a letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Sara Monti, MD, and colleagues in the rheumatology department of the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico in San Matteo, Italy, described results from an observational cohort of 320 patients (68% women; mean age, 55 years) with RA or spondyloarthritis from a single outpatient clinic. The vast majority of subjects (92%) were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, while the rest were taking targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARD).

Four patients in the cohort developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; another four developed symptoms highly suggestive of the disease but did not receive confirmatory testing, and five had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case but did not develop symptoms of COVID-19.

Among the eight confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients, only one was hospitalized. All temporarily withdrew bDMARD or tsDMARD treatment at symptom onset.

“To date, there have been no significant relapses of the rheumatic disease,” Dr. Monti and colleagues reported. “None of the patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 or with a highly suggestive clinical picture developed severe respiratory complications or died. Only one patient, aged 65, required admission to hospital and low-flow oxygen supplementation for a few days.”

The findings “do not allow any conclusions on the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases, nor on the overall outcome of immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19,” the investigators cautioned, adding that such patients should receive careful attention and follow-up. “However, our preliminary experience shows that patients with chronic arthritis treated with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs do not seem to be at increased risk of respiratory or life-threatening complications from SARS-CoV-2, compared with the general population.”

Dr. Monti and colleagues noted that, during previous outbreaks of other coronaviruses, no increased mortality was reported for people taking immunosuppressive drugs for a range of conditions, including autoimmune diseases.

“These data can support rheumatologists [in] avoiding the unjustifiable preventive withdrawal of DMARDs, which could lead to an increased risk of relapses and morbidity from the chronic rheumatological condition,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Monti and colleagues reported no outside funding or financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Monti S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 April 2. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217424.

Patients being treated for RA or spondyloarthritis who develop symptoms of COVID-19 do not appear to be at higher risk of respiratory or life-threatening complications, results from a new study in Italy suggest.

Such patients, the study authors wrote, do not need to be taken off their immunosuppressive medications if they develop COVID-19 symptoms.

In a letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Sara Monti, MD, and colleagues in the rheumatology department of the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico in San Matteo, Italy, described results from an observational cohort of 320 patients (68% women; mean age, 55 years) with RA or spondyloarthritis from a single outpatient clinic. The vast majority of subjects (92%) were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, while the rest were taking targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARD).

Four patients in the cohort developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; another four developed symptoms highly suggestive of the disease but did not receive confirmatory testing, and five had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case but did not develop symptoms of COVID-19.

Among the eight confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients, only one was hospitalized. All temporarily withdrew bDMARD or tsDMARD treatment at symptom onset.

“To date, there have been no significant relapses of the rheumatic disease,” Dr. Monti and colleagues reported. “None of the patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 or with a highly suggestive clinical picture developed severe respiratory complications or died. Only one patient, aged 65, required admission to hospital and low-flow oxygen supplementation for a few days.”

The findings “do not allow any conclusions on the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases, nor on the overall outcome of immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19,” the investigators cautioned, adding that such patients should receive careful attention and follow-up. “However, our preliminary experience shows that patients with chronic arthritis treated with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs do not seem to be at increased risk of respiratory or life-threatening complications from SARS-CoV-2, compared with the general population.”

Dr. Monti and colleagues noted that, during previous outbreaks of other coronaviruses, no increased mortality was reported for people taking immunosuppressive drugs for a range of conditions, including autoimmune diseases.

“These data can support rheumatologists [in] avoiding the unjustifiable preventive withdrawal of DMARDs, which could lead to an increased risk of relapses and morbidity from the chronic rheumatological condition,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Monti and colleagues reported no outside funding or financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Monti S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 April 2. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217424.

Patients being treated for RA or spondyloarthritis who develop symptoms of COVID-19 do not appear to be at higher risk of respiratory or life-threatening complications, results from a new study in Italy suggest.

Such patients, the study authors wrote, do not need to be taken off their immunosuppressive medications if they develop COVID-19 symptoms.

In a letter published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Sara Monti, MD, and colleagues in the rheumatology department of the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico in San Matteo, Italy, described results from an observational cohort of 320 patients (68% women; mean age, 55 years) with RA or spondyloarthritis from a single outpatient clinic. The vast majority of subjects (92%) were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, while the rest were taking targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARD).

Four patients in the cohort developed laboratory-confirmed COVID-19; another four developed symptoms highly suggestive of the disease but did not receive confirmatory testing, and five had contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case but did not develop symptoms of COVID-19.

Among the eight confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients, only one was hospitalized. All temporarily withdrew bDMARD or tsDMARD treatment at symptom onset.

“To date, there have been no significant relapses of the rheumatic disease,” Dr. Monti and colleagues reported. “None of the patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 or with a highly suggestive clinical picture developed severe respiratory complications or died. Only one patient, aged 65, required admission to hospital and low-flow oxygen supplementation for a few days.”

The findings “do not allow any conclusions on the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases, nor on the overall outcome of immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19,” the investigators cautioned, adding that such patients should receive careful attention and follow-up. “However, our preliminary experience shows that patients with chronic arthritis treated with bDMARDs or tsDMARDs do not seem to be at increased risk of respiratory or life-threatening complications from SARS-CoV-2, compared with the general population.”

Dr. Monti and colleagues noted that, during previous outbreaks of other coronaviruses, no increased mortality was reported for people taking immunosuppressive drugs for a range of conditions, including autoimmune diseases.

“These data can support rheumatologists [in] avoiding the unjustifiable preventive withdrawal of DMARDs, which could lead to an increased risk of relapses and morbidity from the chronic rheumatological condition,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Monti and colleagues reported no outside funding or financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Monti S et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 April 2. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217424.