TBD Meeting (3521-20)

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

As might be expected, the “EULAR [European League Against Rheumatism] provisional recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [RMDs] in the context of SARS-CoV-2” concur with much of the guidance already released on how best to manage patients during the current pandemic.

Highlights of the five overarching principles are that, contrary to earlier expectations, “there is no indication that patients with RMDs have an additional, or have a higher, risk of contracting the virus, or that they fare a worse course” than the general population, said the task force convener Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Amsterdam.

“The second pertinent highlight is that, when it comes to managerial discussions, whether or not to stop or to start treatment for RMDs, rheumatologists should definitely be involved,” Dr. Landewé said during a live session at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. “In practice, something that happens very often is that immunosuppressive drugs are stopped by medical specialists involved in the care of COVID but without any expertise in treating patients with rheumatic diseases. We should try to avoid that situation.”

The third highlight, something many rheumatologists may already be well aware of, is that rheumatology drugs are being used to treat COVID-19 patients without RMDs and a shortage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) agents is a real possibility. As such, the fifth overarching highlight states that the availability of both synthetic and biologic DMARDs is “a delicate societal responsibility” and that “the off-label use of DMARDs in COVID-19 outside the context of clinical trials should be discouraged.”

The EULAR recommendation are now published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and they are “what you could call an unprecedented set of recommendations,” Dr. Landewé said. “We have never done this before,” he added, referring to the speed and way in which they had to be put together, remotely, and with little scientific evidence currently available. “Three months ago we hadn’t even heard about the virus.”

From the first patient being identified in the Hubei province of China in November 2019, to the first U.S. patient in the state of Washington on Jan. 20, 2020, and to the first European patient identified a little over 10 days later, the COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm. It was only declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020, however, and Dr. Landewé noted that the response to the pandemic had been very variable – some countries locking down their borders early, while others took their time to make an appropriate response, if at all.

The rheumatology community was particularly concerned, Dr. Landewé said, because people with autoimmune diseases who were taking immunosuppressant drugs might be at higher risk for becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, and may be at higher risk than others for a worse disease course. Thankfully, that seems not to be the case according to data that are emerging from new registries that have been set up, including EULAR’s own COVID-19 registry.

There are 13 recommendations that cover 4 themes: general measures and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection; the management of RMD patients during the pandemic; the management of RMD patients who have COVID-19; and the prevention of other pulmonary infections in RMD patients.

Highlighting the first three general recommendations, Dr. Landewé said: “Follow the regular guidelines in your country; if a patient with RMD does not have symptoms of COVID-19, simply continue RMD treatments,” albeit with a couple of exceptions.

The next four recommendation highlights are to avoid visits to the hospital or to the office; use remote monitoring via the telephone, for example; and if visits cannot be avoided, then take appropriate precautions. Finally, if you suspect a patient has COVID-19, do a test.

If patients test positive, then the next four recommendations cover what to do, such as continuing use of RMD treatments, but in the case of glucocorticoids this should be the lowest possible dose necessary. There is no consensus on what to do in cases of mild symptoms; the recommendation is to “decide on a case-by-case basis,” said Dr. Landewé. If a patient’s symptoms worsen, then “seek expert advice immediately and follow local treatment recommendations. The rheumatologist is not the expert to treat COVID-19,” he added. That responsibility lies with the pulmonologist, infectious disease specialist, or maybe the intensive care specialist, depending on local situations.

On the whole, the EULAR recommendations are pretty similar to those already released by the American College of Rheumatology, said Ted Mikuls, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. The ACR recommendations are “slightly more prescriptive”, he suggested, with 25 final guidance statements. For example, general statements focused not only on the use of glucocorticoids, but also other medicines, such as antihypertensives.

“There’s really not a [lot of], I would say, major differences in the two efforts and that’s ... somewhat reassuring that we’re approaching the unknown from very different parts of the world, and driving in a very similar place,” commented Dr. Mikuls, who is a member of the ACR COVID-19 recommendations task force.

“I think one of the very important similarities that I would highlight is that, in the absence of known exposure, in the absence of COVID-19 infection, our panel felt very strongly about the importance of continuing rheumatic disease treatments,” Dr. Mikuls observed. The ACR guidelines also touch upon societal perspectives, including “some statements that were made very specific to lupus, and the use of antimalarials, given supply chain issues that we have encountered.”

Dr. Mikuls also said that the American recommendations emphasized that “you really have to manage active inflammatory rheumatic disease. Even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, given what we saw as the potential risk of unchecked inflammation and unchecked rheumatic disease.”

One notable difference, however, is that the European recommendations advise on immunizations and pneumonia prophylaxis, saying that all patients without COVID-19 symptoms should make sure they are up to date with any recommended vaccinations, “with a particular focus on pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations,” Dr. Landewé said.

Another difference is that the ACR recommendations are a living document and could potentially be updated monthly if the evidence arrives to allow that. In that sense, the American guidance is more agile, with EULAR expecting to update its recommendations every 3 months.

“The current evidence is extremely sparse and fragmented,” Dr. Landewé said. “We, as a task force are essentially flying blindly. We also have to cover many jurisdictions within Europe, with many conflicting opinions. So the last word to say is that updates are truly necessary, but we have to wait a while.”

SOURCE: Landewé RB et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217877.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

A treat-to-target strategy for managing patients with axial spondyloarthritis failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint but still showed several suggestive indications of benefit compared with usual care in a multicenter, randomized study with 160 patients.

The treat-to-target management strategy tested aimed to get patients to an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) of less than 2.1, as recommended for patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) by an international task force. Also notable about the study was its primary endpoint, at least a 30% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Health Index (ASAS HI), a measure of health-related quality-of-life that the study organizers selected in part because of its distinction from the treatment target.

“For the first time in rheumatology, we targeted inflammation to have an impact on another domain of the disease. Despite not reaching statistical significance, we see a difference between the groups,” Anna Moltó, MD, said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

After 12 months in the study, the 80 axSpA patients assigned to the treat-to-target regimen had a 47% rate of attainment of the primary endpoint, compared with 36% of the 80 patients assigned to usual care, an 11% absolute between-group difference with a P value that came close to but failed to achieve the conventional standard of statistical significance after adjustment for potential confounders (P = .09). Six secondary outcomes showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control patients, including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the ASAS 20, and ASAS 40. Five additional metrics showed nominal between-group improvements with the treat-to-target strategy that were not statistically significant, including various forms of the ASDAS.

One additional notable finding came from a cost-efficacy analysis run by Dr. Moltó and associates, which showed that the treat-to-target strategy was “dominant” over usual care by producing both better outcomes as well as a lower total cost, compared with control patients, even though twice as many patients on the treat-to-target strategy received a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) compared with patients in the usual care group. The incremental cost utility ratio for treat-to-target was 19,430 euros (about $22,000) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, putting the strategy into the range of a “cost effective” approach, and the two treatment arms also had comparable safety, said Dr. Moltó, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital in Paris.

The 11% increase in treat-to-target patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in their ASAS HI score “is potentially clinically relevant” because the comparator arm in the study received “very active” usual care and was not by any measure a true placebo control group, noted Maxime Dougados, MD, a rheumatologist and professor or medicine at Cochin Hospital and senior investigator for the study. In general, in treatment studies of rheumatologic diseases a 10% or greater absolute increase in the incidence of a beneficial outcome is considered clinically meaningful when compared with an actively-treated control arm, he noted.

“Using the ASAS HI score was very ambitious for the study, and it’s a very relevant outcome,” said Sofia Ramiro, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center who was not associated with the study and chaired the session where Dr. Moltó gave her report. “We have had treat-to-target trials that showed benefit when disease activity was the endpoint.” But when a study “targets treatment to [reducing] disease activity and then uses disease activity as the outcome measure you expect to see an effect, but it is circular reasoning and we are left with challenges in interpreting the results. Now we have a trial that is formally [neutral] but with a different, more ambitious endpoint. All the indications are for benefit from treat-to-target for both the primary endpoint and for all the other endpoints.”

“We were in a difficult situation when choosing the outcome. We didn’t know whether a 30% improvement in the ASAS HI was really relevant, but it seems to be,” said Désirée van der Heijde, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Leiden University Medical Center and a collaborator on Dr. Moltó’s study. “I’d choose ASAS HI again as a primary endpoint” for a treat-to-target study in patients with axSpA, she said, but added that a 30% improvement in this score as the response threshold may warrant reconsideration. Both Dr. van der Heijde and Dr. Dougados agreed that at least one additional study with a somewhat similar design is needed to better document and confirm a role for a treat-to-target strategy in axSpA patients.

The Tight Control in Spondyloarthritis (TICOSPA) study ran at 10 French centers and 4 centers each in Belgium and the Netherlands. The study enrolled adults with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA with an ASDAS score greater than 2.1 who had not yet received a bDMARD, had not yet maxed out on their dosage of NSAIDs, and had certain baseline immunologic and imaging findings available. The researchers randomized 160 patients to either treat-to-target or usual care management by the center they attended to prevent cross contamination of management strategies. The treat-to-target regimen involved office examinations and consultations every 4 weeks rather than every 3 months with usual care, and also required a predefined management strategy with treatment prompts based on the strategy sent to the treating clinicians via the EMR. The average age of the patients was 38 years, they had been diagnosed with axSpA for an average of just under 4 years, and their mean ASDAS score at entry was 3. During the 12 months of management, 56% of the patients in the treat-to-target arm initiated treatment with a bDMARD, compared with 28% among the controls. Use of NSAIDs was similar between the two study subgroups.

TICOSPA was sponsored by UCB. Dr. Moltó has been a consultant to and received research funding from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Dougados has had financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. van der Heijde has had financial relationships with more than 20 companies including UCB. Dr. Ramiro had been a consultant to or received research funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:413.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) improves joint and skin symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis for whom at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) didn’t work or wasn’t well tolerated, a pair of phase 3 trials suggests.

“In psoriatic arthritis patients, there’s still a high proportion of patients who do not respond to traditional, nonbiologic DMARDs, so there’s room for improvement,” said Marina Magrey, MD, from the MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, in Cleveland.

She and her colleagues evaluated the JAK inhibitor, already approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, in the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, which followed more than 2,300 patients with psoriatic arthritis for an average of 6-10 years.

No safety signals emerged for upadacitinib in either trial that weren’t already seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the investigators report, although a lower dose appeared to prompt fewer adverse events.

The research adds upadacitinib “to the armamentarium of medications we have against psoriatic arthritis,” said Dr. Magrey, who is a SELECT-PsA 1 investigator.

“The advantage of this medication is it’s available orally, so the convenience is there. It will enable both patients and physicians to choose from efficacious medications,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The team was “pleasantly surprised by the magnitude and rapidity of effect” of upadacitinib in study participants, said Philip Mease, MD, from the Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, who is lead investigator for SELECT-PsA 2.

“It’s important to be able to understand if there’s adequate effectiveness in patients who’ve already been around the block several times with other treatments,” Dr. Mease told Medscape Medical News. “This trial demonstrated there was a high degree of effectiveness in each of the clinical domains” of psoriatic arthritis.

Results from both studies were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism 2020 Congress.
 

SELECT-PsA 1

In SELECT-PsA 1, upadacitinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo in 1705 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one nonbiologic DMARD. Participants were randomized to receive upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – adalimumab 40 mg every other week, or placebo.

The primary endpoint was an improvement of at least 20% (ACR20) at week 12.

Secondary endpoints included change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score and change in patient assessment of pain on a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Treatment-related adverse events were reported out to week 24 for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

Improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, pain, physical function, and fatigue were seen by week 2 in both upadacitinib groups. At week 12, both doses of upadacitinib were noninferior to adalimumab for the achievement of ACR20 (P < .001), and the 30-mg dose was superior to adalimumab (P < .001).

More patients in the upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group met the stringent criteria for disease control, which included the achievement of minimal disease activity, ACR50, and ACR70.

The difference in effectiveness between the two doses of upadacitinib was small, but “there were relatively more adverse events,” such as infections, in the 30-mg group, Dr. Magrey reported, “so 15 mg seems like it will be the dose to go toward FDA approval.”
 

SELECT-PsA 2

SELECT-PsA 2 compared upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – with placebo in 641 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more biologic DMARDs.

The primary endpoint was the achievement of ACR20 at week 12.

Among the many secondary endpoints were a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) score from baseline to week 16, the achievement of minimal disease activity at week 24, the achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and the achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Adverse events were reported for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by significantly more patients in the 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group (56.9% vs. 63.8% vs. 24.1%; P < .0001), as was ACR50 (31.8% vs. 37.6% vs. 4.1%; P < .0001) and ACR70 (8.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 0.5%; P < .0001). In addition, all secondary endpoints were significantly better with upadacitinib than with placebo.

Rates of adverse events were similar in the 15 mg upadacitinib and placebo groups, but the rate was higher in the 30 mg upadacitinib group, including for herpes zoster.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the overall safety profile,” Dr. Mease said. “Yes, you need to pay attention to the potential for infection, but rates of serious infection were very low.”

“We didn’t see opportunistic infections occurring, and the overall adverse-events profile was one where we could be pretty reassuring with patients when introducing the medication and mechanism of action,” he added.

Upadacitinib appears to have significantly improved PASI scores in both trials, which is surprising, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

“I think the data indicate that upadacitinib is a viable drug for treatment of psoriatic arthritis,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I don’t think it’s going to be tested in psoriasis, but for those with psoriatic arthritis and those whose burden of psoriasis is not particularly elevated, this drug looks like it might be very helpful to practicing physicians and their patients.”

Dr. Ritchlin added that he hopes future research will address whether upadacitinib is effective for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis, which wasn’t measured in these trials.

“I don’t see this as a weakness” of the current research, he said, but “having some spinal measures would be helpful. It’s something additional we’d like to know.”

Both trials were funded by AbbVie. Dr. Magrey reports financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Dr. Mease reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Genentech, and Janssen. Dr. Ritchlin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) improves joint and skin symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis for whom at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) didn’t work or wasn’t well tolerated, a pair of phase 3 trials suggests.

“In psoriatic arthritis patients, there’s still a high proportion of patients who do not respond to traditional, nonbiologic DMARDs, so there’s room for improvement,” said Marina Magrey, MD, from the MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, in Cleveland.

She and her colleagues evaluated the JAK inhibitor, already approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, in the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, which followed more than 2,300 patients with psoriatic arthritis for an average of 6-10 years.

No safety signals emerged for upadacitinib in either trial that weren’t already seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the investigators report, although a lower dose appeared to prompt fewer adverse events.

The research adds upadacitinib “to the armamentarium of medications we have against psoriatic arthritis,” said Dr. Magrey, who is a SELECT-PsA 1 investigator.

“The advantage of this medication is it’s available orally, so the convenience is there. It will enable both patients and physicians to choose from efficacious medications,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The team was “pleasantly surprised by the magnitude and rapidity of effect” of upadacitinib in study participants, said Philip Mease, MD, from the Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, who is lead investigator for SELECT-PsA 2.

“It’s important to be able to understand if there’s adequate effectiveness in patients who’ve already been around the block several times with other treatments,” Dr. Mease told Medscape Medical News. “This trial demonstrated there was a high degree of effectiveness in each of the clinical domains” of psoriatic arthritis.

Results from both studies were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism 2020 Congress.
 

SELECT-PsA 1

In SELECT-PsA 1, upadacitinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo in 1705 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one nonbiologic DMARD. Participants were randomized to receive upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – adalimumab 40 mg every other week, or placebo.

The primary endpoint was an improvement of at least 20% (ACR20) at week 12.

Secondary endpoints included change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score and change in patient assessment of pain on a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Treatment-related adverse events were reported out to week 24 for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

Improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, pain, physical function, and fatigue were seen by week 2 in both upadacitinib groups. At week 12, both doses of upadacitinib were noninferior to adalimumab for the achievement of ACR20 (P < .001), and the 30-mg dose was superior to adalimumab (P < .001).

More patients in the upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group met the stringent criteria for disease control, which included the achievement of minimal disease activity, ACR50, and ACR70.

The difference in effectiveness between the two doses of upadacitinib was small, but “there were relatively more adverse events,” such as infections, in the 30-mg group, Dr. Magrey reported, “so 15 mg seems like it will be the dose to go toward FDA approval.”
 

SELECT-PsA 2

SELECT-PsA 2 compared upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – with placebo in 641 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more biologic DMARDs.

The primary endpoint was the achievement of ACR20 at week 12.

Among the many secondary endpoints were a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) score from baseline to week 16, the achievement of minimal disease activity at week 24, the achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and the achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Adverse events were reported for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by significantly more patients in the 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group (56.9% vs. 63.8% vs. 24.1%; P < .0001), as was ACR50 (31.8% vs. 37.6% vs. 4.1%; P < .0001) and ACR70 (8.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 0.5%; P < .0001). In addition, all secondary endpoints were significantly better with upadacitinib than with placebo.

Rates of adverse events were similar in the 15 mg upadacitinib and placebo groups, but the rate was higher in the 30 mg upadacitinib group, including for herpes zoster.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the overall safety profile,” Dr. Mease said. “Yes, you need to pay attention to the potential for infection, but rates of serious infection were very low.”

“We didn’t see opportunistic infections occurring, and the overall adverse-events profile was one where we could be pretty reassuring with patients when introducing the medication and mechanism of action,” he added.

Upadacitinib appears to have significantly improved PASI scores in both trials, which is surprising, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

“I think the data indicate that upadacitinib is a viable drug for treatment of psoriatic arthritis,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I don’t think it’s going to be tested in psoriasis, but for those with psoriatic arthritis and those whose burden of psoriasis is not particularly elevated, this drug looks like it might be very helpful to practicing physicians and their patients.”

Dr. Ritchlin added that he hopes future research will address whether upadacitinib is effective for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis, which wasn’t measured in these trials.

“I don’t see this as a weakness” of the current research, he said, but “having some spinal measures would be helpful. It’s something additional we’d like to know.”

Both trials were funded by AbbVie. Dr. Magrey reports financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Dr. Mease reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Genentech, and Janssen. Dr. Ritchlin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) improves joint and skin symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis for whom at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) didn’t work or wasn’t well tolerated, a pair of phase 3 trials suggests.

“In psoriatic arthritis patients, there’s still a high proportion of patients who do not respond to traditional, nonbiologic DMARDs, so there’s room for improvement,” said Marina Magrey, MD, from the MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, in Cleveland.

She and her colleagues evaluated the JAK inhibitor, already approved for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States, in the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials, which followed more than 2,300 patients with psoriatic arthritis for an average of 6-10 years.

No safety signals emerged for upadacitinib in either trial that weren’t already seen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the investigators report, although a lower dose appeared to prompt fewer adverse events.

The research adds upadacitinib “to the armamentarium of medications we have against psoriatic arthritis,” said Dr. Magrey, who is a SELECT-PsA 1 investigator.

“The advantage of this medication is it’s available orally, so the convenience is there. It will enable both patients and physicians to choose from efficacious medications,” she told Medscape Medical News.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The team was “pleasantly surprised by the magnitude and rapidity of effect” of upadacitinib in study participants, said Philip Mease, MD, from the Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington in Seattle, who is lead investigator for SELECT-PsA 2.

“It’s important to be able to understand if there’s adequate effectiveness in patients who’ve already been around the block several times with other treatments,” Dr. Mease told Medscape Medical News. “This trial demonstrated there was a high degree of effectiveness in each of the clinical domains” of psoriatic arthritis.

Results from both studies were presented at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism 2020 Congress.
 

SELECT-PsA 1

In SELECT-PsA 1, upadacitinib was compared with adalimumab and placebo in 1705 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to at least one nonbiologic DMARD. Participants were randomized to receive upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – adalimumab 40 mg every other week, or placebo.

The primary endpoint was an improvement of at least 20% (ACR20) at week 12.

Secondary endpoints included change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score and change in patient assessment of pain on a numeric rating scale from baseline to week 12, achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Treatment-related adverse events were reported out to week 24 for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

Improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, pain, physical function, and fatigue were seen by week 2 in both upadacitinib groups. At week 12, both doses of upadacitinib were noninferior to adalimumab for the achievement of ACR20 (P < .001), and the 30-mg dose was superior to adalimumab (P < .001).

More patients in the upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group met the stringent criteria for disease control, which included the achievement of minimal disease activity, ACR50, and ACR70.

The difference in effectiveness between the two doses of upadacitinib was small, but “there were relatively more adverse events,” such as infections, in the 30-mg group, Dr. Magrey reported, “so 15 mg seems like it will be the dose to go toward FDA approval.”
 

SELECT-PsA 2

SELECT-PsA 2 compared upadacitinib – 15 mg or 30 mg once daily – with placebo in 641 patients who previously had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more biologic DMARDs.

The primary endpoint was the achievement of ACR20 at week 12.

Among the many secondary endpoints were a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75) at week 16, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (SAPS) score from baseline to week 16, the achievement of minimal disease activity at week 24, the achievement of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, and the achievement of ACR20 at week 2.

Adverse events were reported for patients who received at least one dose of upadacitinib.

At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by significantly more patients in the 15 mg and 30 mg upadacitinib groups than in the placebo group (56.9% vs. 63.8% vs. 24.1%; P < .0001), as was ACR50 (31.8% vs. 37.6% vs. 4.1%; P < .0001) and ACR70 (8.5% vs. 16.5% vs. 0.5%; P < .0001). In addition, all secondary endpoints were significantly better with upadacitinib than with placebo.

Rates of adverse events were similar in the 15 mg upadacitinib and placebo groups, but the rate was higher in the 30 mg upadacitinib group, including for herpes zoster.

“I was pleasantly surprised by the overall safety profile,” Dr. Mease said. “Yes, you need to pay attention to the potential for infection, but rates of serious infection were very low.”

“We didn’t see opportunistic infections occurring, and the overall adverse-events profile was one where we could be pretty reassuring with patients when introducing the medication and mechanism of action,” he added.

Upadacitinib appears to have significantly improved PASI scores in both trials, which is surprising, said Christopher Ritchlin, MD, from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York.

“I think the data indicate that upadacitinib is a viable drug for treatment of psoriatic arthritis,” he told Medscape Medical News. “I don’t think it’s going to be tested in psoriasis, but for those with psoriatic arthritis and those whose burden of psoriasis is not particularly elevated, this drug looks like it might be very helpful to practicing physicians and their patients.”

Dr. Ritchlin added that he hopes future research will address whether upadacitinib is effective for axial disease in psoriatic arthritis, which wasn’t measured in these trials.

“I don’t see this as a weakness” of the current research, he said, but “having some spinal measures would be helpful. It’s something additional we’d like to know.”

Both trials were funded by AbbVie. Dr. Magrey reports financial relationships with Amgen, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Dr. Mease reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB, Genentech, and Janssen. Dr. Ritchlin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis remained on therapy longer with the relatively new JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, according to the large international JAK-pot study, offering encouraging signals about the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in these patients.

“We saw that efficacy with JAK inhibitors was at least as good as other current drugs on the market,” said investigator Kim Lauper, MD, from the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have datasets on JAK inhibitors over a long period of time, but we do have a lot of registers,” Dr. Lauper told Medscape Medical News.

“In general, we were really happy to see no big difference in effectiveness” for these disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA, she said.

In many countries, JAK inhibitors have only recently been approved as a treatment for RA, Lauper explained. In the past several years, baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

For their study, Dr. Lauper and her colleagues analyzed data from registers in 19 countries.

When JAK inhibitors became available in each country, the team assessed effectiveness by comparing how long patients remained on JAK inhibitors or on long-available biologics. Dr. Lauper presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“In general, we know that drug retention is a measure of both effectiveness and safety,” she explained.

Of the 25,521 patients in the 19 registers, 6,063 started on a JAK inhibitor during the 3-year study period, 13,879 started on a TNF inhibitor, 2,348 started on abatacept, and 3,231 started on an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Three-quarters of patients were women (average age, 55 years), and average time since the diagnosis of RA was 10 years.

At baseline, patients taking JAK inhibitors had higher levels of C-reactive protein and disease activity than patients taking a biologic. They had also been treated previously with more traditional and biologic DMARDs.

Ineffectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug, cited by 49% of patients, followed by adverse events, cited by 21%.

The rate of discontinuation was lower for JAK inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors, after adjustment. However, the discontinuation rate for JAK inhibitors, abatacept, and IL-6 inhibitors was comparable.

The observational nature of the study was a limitation, Dr. Lauper acknowledged, explaining that “we couldn’t adjust for confounding factors that were not measured.”

Notably, there were large variations in JAK inhibitor retention rates in the different countries, which surprised both Dr. Lauper and Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid.

“It’s very interesting because there’s not much heterogeneity with abatacept and IL inhibitors,” said Dr. Carmona, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

“It’s all over the spectrum with JAK inhibitors,” she told Medscape Medical News. But “what the research shows is that JAK inhibitors are maintained for longer, which means maybe the mix of efficacy, low toxicity, and adherence, on the whole, is better in JAK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Lauper and Dr. Carmona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis remained on therapy longer with the relatively new JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, according to the large international JAK-pot study, offering encouraging signals about the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in these patients.

“We saw that efficacy with JAK inhibitors was at least as good as other current drugs on the market,” said investigator Kim Lauper, MD, from the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have datasets on JAK inhibitors over a long period of time, but we do have a lot of registers,” Dr. Lauper told Medscape Medical News.

“In general, we were really happy to see no big difference in effectiveness” for these disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA, she said.

In many countries, JAK inhibitors have only recently been approved as a treatment for RA, Lauper explained. In the past several years, baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

For their study, Dr. Lauper and her colleagues analyzed data from registers in 19 countries.

When JAK inhibitors became available in each country, the team assessed effectiveness by comparing how long patients remained on JAK inhibitors or on long-available biologics. Dr. Lauper presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“In general, we know that drug retention is a measure of both effectiveness and safety,” she explained.

Of the 25,521 patients in the 19 registers, 6,063 started on a JAK inhibitor during the 3-year study period, 13,879 started on a TNF inhibitor, 2,348 started on abatacept, and 3,231 started on an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Three-quarters of patients were women (average age, 55 years), and average time since the diagnosis of RA was 10 years.

At baseline, patients taking JAK inhibitors had higher levels of C-reactive protein and disease activity than patients taking a biologic. They had also been treated previously with more traditional and biologic DMARDs.

Ineffectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug, cited by 49% of patients, followed by adverse events, cited by 21%.

The rate of discontinuation was lower for JAK inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors, after adjustment. However, the discontinuation rate for JAK inhibitors, abatacept, and IL-6 inhibitors was comparable.

The observational nature of the study was a limitation, Dr. Lauper acknowledged, explaining that “we couldn’t adjust for confounding factors that were not measured.”

Notably, there were large variations in JAK inhibitor retention rates in the different countries, which surprised both Dr. Lauper and Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid.

“It’s very interesting because there’s not much heterogeneity with abatacept and IL inhibitors,” said Dr. Carmona, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

“It’s all over the spectrum with JAK inhibitors,” she told Medscape Medical News. But “what the research shows is that JAK inhibitors are maintained for longer, which means maybe the mix of efficacy, low toxicity, and adherence, on the whole, is better in JAK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Lauper and Dr. Carmona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis remained on therapy longer with the relatively new JAK inhibitors than with TNF inhibitors, according to the large international JAK-pot study, offering encouraging signals about the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in these patients.

“We saw that efficacy with JAK inhibitors was at least as good as other current drugs on the market,” said investigator Kim Lauper, MD, from the University of Geneva in Switzerland and the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.

“We don’t have datasets on JAK inhibitors over a long period of time, but we do have a lot of registers,” Dr. Lauper told Medscape Medical News.

“In general, we were really happy to see no big difference in effectiveness” for these disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients with RA, she said.

In many countries, JAK inhibitors have only recently been approved as a treatment for RA, Lauper explained. In the past several years, baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

For their study, Dr. Lauper and her colleagues analyzed data from registers in 19 countries.

When JAK inhibitors became available in each country, the team assessed effectiveness by comparing how long patients remained on JAK inhibitors or on long-available biologics. Dr. Lauper presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“In general, we know that drug retention is a measure of both effectiveness and safety,” she explained.

Of the 25,521 patients in the 19 registers, 6,063 started on a JAK inhibitor during the 3-year study period, 13,879 started on a TNF inhibitor, 2,348 started on abatacept, and 3,231 started on an interleukin-6 inhibitor.

Three-quarters of patients were women (average age, 55 years), and average time since the diagnosis of RA was 10 years.

At baseline, patients taking JAK inhibitors had higher levels of C-reactive protein and disease activity than patients taking a biologic. They had also been treated previously with more traditional and biologic DMARDs.

Ineffectiveness was the most common reason for discontinuing a drug, cited by 49% of patients, followed by adverse events, cited by 21%.

The rate of discontinuation was lower for JAK inhibitors than for TNF inhibitors, after adjustment. However, the discontinuation rate for JAK inhibitors, abatacept, and IL-6 inhibitors was comparable.

The observational nature of the study was a limitation, Dr. Lauper acknowledged, explaining that “we couldn’t adjust for confounding factors that were not measured.”

Notably, there were large variations in JAK inhibitor retention rates in the different countries, which surprised both Dr. Lauper and Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid.

“It’s very interesting because there’s not much heterogeneity with abatacept and IL inhibitors,” said Dr. Carmona, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

“It’s all over the spectrum with JAK inhibitors,” she told Medscape Medical News. But “what the research shows is that JAK inhibitors are maintained for longer, which means maybe the mix of efficacy, low toxicity, and adherence, on the whole, is better in JAK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Lauper and Dr. Carmona have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Opioid use does not decline after patients with inflammatory arthritis start TNF inhibitor therapy; in fact, average use appears to increase, results from a new study show.

“Starting a TNF inhibitor, you would think the pain would go down, and we were hoping the dose of opioids would go down with it,” said investigator Olafur Palsson, MD, from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and Lund University in Sweden.

“But this research shows that the insertion of a TNF inhibitor has only a minor effect on that,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The findings are an “important reminder” to rheumatologists that they should broaden their consideration of other pain treatments and techniques for patients with inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Palsson said. “They should focus on trying other tactics to get patients’ pain and stiffness under control; there may be some underlying factors.”

The investigators compared opioid prescription rates in 940 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and undifferentiated arthritis with a control group of 4,700 matched subjects. Dr. Palsson presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

The team assessed nationwide databases that capture all patients taking biologics for rheumatic diseases and more than 90% of all drug prescriptions. They found that patients with inflammatory arthritis in Iceland were more likely to have received at least one opioid prescription than control subjects (75% vs. 43%).

During the study period, average yearly opioid dose rose much more in the patient group than in the control group. And 2 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitors, the number of patients taking opioids was unchanged from baseline, at about 40%.

Overall, the patient group was prescribed nearly six times more opioids than the control group. The investigators used a bootstrapping analysis to obtain a reliable confidence interval.

“In a way, the data are extremely skewed,” Dr. Palsson explained. “Most patients were taking very low doses of opioids and a few were taking extremely high doses. It’s hard to do a statistical analysis.”

“With bootstrapping, you don’t detect small fluctuations in data,” he said, acknowledging this study limitation. Also, “prescription data don’t necessarily reflect consumption” of a drug. People prescribed high doses may not necessarily be consuming high doses.”

Additionally, the risk for addiction is low when opioids are used as intended, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

To alleviate chronic pain, opioids “should, in any case, only be part of a comprehensive therapy program in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together,” Dr. Isaacs said in a EULAR news release.

Dr. Palsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.



 

Opioid use does not decline after patients with inflammatory arthritis start TNF inhibitor therapy; in fact, average use appears to increase, results from a new study show.

“Starting a TNF inhibitor, you would think the pain would go down, and we were hoping the dose of opioids would go down with it,” said investigator Olafur Palsson, MD, from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and Lund University in Sweden.

“But this research shows that the insertion of a TNF inhibitor has only a minor effect on that,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The findings are an “important reminder” to rheumatologists that they should broaden their consideration of other pain treatments and techniques for patients with inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Palsson said. “They should focus on trying other tactics to get patients’ pain and stiffness under control; there may be some underlying factors.”

The investigators compared opioid prescription rates in 940 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and undifferentiated arthritis with a control group of 4,700 matched subjects. Dr. Palsson presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

The team assessed nationwide databases that capture all patients taking biologics for rheumatic diseases and more than 90% of all drug prescriptions. They found that patients with inflammatory arthritis in Iceland were more likely to have received at least one opioid prescription than control subjects (75% vs. 43%).

During the study period, average yearly opioid dose rose much more in the patient group than in the control group. And 2 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitors, the number of patients taking opioids was unchanged from baseline, at about 40%.

Overall, the patient group was prescribed nearly six times more opioids than the control group. The investigators used a bootstrapping analysis to obtain a reliable confidence interval.

“In a way, the data are extremely skewed,” Dr. Palsson explained. “Most patients were taking very low doses of opioids and a few were taking extremely high doses. It’s hard to do a statistical analysis.”

“With bootstrapping, you don’t detect small fluctuations in data,” he said, acknowledging this study limitation. Also, “prescription data don’t necessarily reflect consumption” of a drug. People prescribed high doses may not necessarily be consuming high doses.”

Additionally, the risk for addiction is low when opioids are used as intended, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

To alleviate chronic pain, opioids “should, in any case, only be part of a comprehensive therapy program in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together,” Dr. Isaacs said in a EULAR news release.

Dr. Palsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.



 

Opioid use does not decline after patients with inflammatory arthritis start TNF inhibitor therapy; in fact, average use appears to increase, results from a new study show.

“Starting a TNF inhibitor, you would think the pain would go down, and we were hoping the dose of opioids would go down with it,” said investigator Olafur Palsson, MD, from the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and Lund University in Sweden.

“But this research shows that the insertion of a TNF inhibitor has only a minor effect on that,” he told Medscape Medical News.

The findings are an “important reminder” to rheumatologists that they should broaden their consideration of other pain treatments and techniques for patients with inflammatory arthritis, Dr. Palsson said. “They should focus on trying other tactics to get patients’ pain and stiffness under control; there may be some underlying factors.”

The investigators compared opioid prescription rates in 940 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and undifferentiated arthritis with a control group of 4,700 matched subjects. Dr. Palsson presented the findings at the virtual European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

The team assessed nationwide databases that capture all patients taking biologics for rheumatic diseases and more than 90% of all drug prescriptions. They found that patients with inflammatory arthritis in Iceland were more likely to have received at least one opioid prescription than control subjects (75% vs. 43%).

During the study period, average yearly opioid dose rose much more in the patient group than in the control group. And 2 years after the initiation of TNF inhibitors, the number of patients taking opioids was unchanged from baseline, at about 40%.

Overall, the patient group was prescribed nearly six times more opioids than the control group. The investigators used a bootstrapping analysis to obtain a reliable confidence interval.

“In a way, the data are extremely skewed,” Dr. Palsson explained. “Most patients were taking very low doses of opioids and a few were taking extremely high doses. It’s hard to do a statistical analysis.”

“With bootstrapping, you don’t detect small fluctuations in data,” he said, acknowledging this study limitation. Also, “prescription data don’t necessarily reflect consumption” of a drug. People prescribed high doses may not necessarily be consuming high doses.”

Additionally, the risk for addiction is low when opioids are used as intended, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

To alleviate chronic pain, opioids “should, in any case, only be part of a comprehensive therapy program in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together,” Dr. Isaacs said in a EULAR news release.

Dr. Palsson has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.



 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

The risk for venous thromboembolism is almost 50% lower in patients with RA taking TNF inhibitors than in those taking conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data from the German RABBIT registry.

“Some rheumatologists have thought TNF inhibitors could increase the risk for venous thromboembolism events, but we don’t think this is true, based on our findings,” said investigator Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, from the German Rheumatism Research Center in Berlin.

The risk is more than one-third lower in RA patients treated with other newer biologics, such as abatacept, rituximab, sarilumab, and tocilizumab.

However, risk for a serious venous thromboembolism is twice as high in patients with C-reactive protein (CRP) levels above 5 mg/L and is nearly three times as high in patients 65 years and older.

For the study, Dr. Strangfeld and her colleagues followed about 11,000 patients for more than 10 years. The findings were presented at the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2020 Congress.

“Patients with RA have a greater risk for venous thromboembolism compared with the general population, but we didn’t know the risk conveyed by different DMARD treatments,” Dr. Strangfeld told Medscape Medical News. “It is also evident that higher age and lower capacity for physical function increase the risk, which was not so surprising.”

Chronic inflammation in RA patients elevates the risk for deep vein and pulmonary thrombosis by two to three times, said John Isaacs, MBBS, PhD, from Newcastle University in Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom, who is chair of the EULAR scientific program committee.

Among the supporting studies Dr. Isaacs discussed during an online press conference was a Swedish trial of more than 46,000 RA patients, which had been presented earlier by Viktor Molander, a PhD candidate from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (abstract OP0034).

Mr. Molander’s team showed that one in 100 patients with high disease activity will develop venous thromboembolism within a year, which is twice the number of events seen among patients in remission.

Combined with the RABBIT data, both studies “show if you can control their disease in the right way, you’re not only helping rheumatoid arthritis patients feel better, but you could be prolonging their lives,” Dr. Isaacs said.

The prospective RABBIT study followed RA patients who began receiving a new DMARD after treatment failed with at least one conventional synthetic DMARD, such as methotrexate or leflunomide. At baseline, those taking TNF inhibitors or other biologics had higher CRP levels on average, as well as a higher rate of existing cardiovascular disease. They also received glucocorticoids, such as prednisone, more often.

The observational nature of the RABBIT study is a weakness, Dr. Strangfeld said, and it could not prove cause and effect. But the methodology had several strengths, including input on patient factors from participating rheumatologists at least every 6 months.

“We enrolled patients at the start of treatment and observed them, regardless of any treatment changes, for up to 10 years,” she added. “That’s a really long observation period.”

The RABBIT data can help shape treatment decisions, said Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, from the Musculoskeletal Health Institute in Madrid, who is chair of the EULAR abstract selection committee.

For a woman with RA who smokes and takes oral contraceptives, for example, “if she has high levels of inflammation, I think it’s okay to use TNF inhibitors, where maybe in the past we wouldn’t have thought that,” she said.

“The TNF inhibitors are actually reducing the inflammation and, therefore, reducing the risk,” Dr. Carmona told Medscape Medical News. “It could be an effect of using the drugs on people with higher levels of inflammation. It’s an indirect protective effect.”

The study was funded by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Fresenius-Kabi, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Isaacs is a consultant or has received honoraria or grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Merck, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Carmona has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.




 

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.

A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.

In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.

However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.

“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”

As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
 

Danish nationwide study

René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.

Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)

In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).

“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”

Multinational study

Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.

Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.

Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).

Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).

“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”

“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”

The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.

SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.

A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.

In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.

However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.

“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”

As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
 

Danish nationwide study

René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.

Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)

In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).

“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”

Multinational study

Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.

Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.

Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).

Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).

“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”

“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”

The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.

SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an elevated risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but methotrexate does not accentuate that risk and may in fact be protective, new data show. These were among key findings of a pair of studies reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Although a guideline-recommended cornerstone in the management of RA, methotrexate has been associated with both hypersensitivity pneumonitis and diffuse lung disease. However, its involvement in the development of ILD among patients with RA is unclear.

A Danish study of more than 30,000 RA patients reported at the congress found that their risk of ILD was about three to five times that of the general population. However, risk did not differ significantly whether they had filled a methotrexate prescription or not.

In addition, a multinational case-control study of more than 1,000 RA patients also reported at the congress found that, compared with never-users of methotrexate, ever-users actually had a 59% lower likelihood of developing ILD.

However, both studies were limited by their retrospective design, Elizabeth R. Volkmann, MD, codirector of the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles, cautioned in an interview. Hence, there was likely systematic bias and confounding.

“I would interpret the conclusions of both studies with caution,” she maintained. “To understand how a particular intervention, such as methotrexate use, affects the outcome of ILD development, a prospective design is needed, which adequately adjusts for known ILD risk factors, such as male sex and smoking.”

As to whether the new findings are practice changing and how they might affect patient counseling, “the answers to these questions are not straightforward and depend on other patient-related factors,” according to Dr. Volkmann.
 

Danish nationwide study

René Cordtz, MD, a clinical assistant at the Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Rigshospitalet‐Gentofte, Copenhagen, and colleagues conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using registry data from 1997 to 2015 to assess lung disease among patients with RA by prescriptions filled.

Results based on 30,512 RA patients showed that, compared with peers filling no methotrexate prescriptions, patients filling at least one did not have a significantly elevated risk of ILD at either 1 year of follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.03) or 5 years of follow-up (HR, 1.00). (Findings were similar for sulfasalazine, with respective nonsignificant HRs of 0.88 and 1.14.)

In addition, patients with RA had a similarly sharply elevated 5-year risk of ILD relative to the general population regardless of whether they had filled neither methotrexate nor sulfasalazine prescriptions (standardized incidence ratio, 3.38) or had filled prescriptions for methotrexate only (SIR, 3.63), sulfasalazine only (SIR, 4.12), or both (SIR, 5.45).

“RA patients have an increased risk of ILD, compared to the general population, which was not surprising, but very importantly, that risk was not further exacerbated in those treated with methotrexate,” Dr. Cordtz concluded. “We do acknowledge that purchasing your medicine is different from taking your medicine, which is why we found it extra reassuring that when requiring at least two methotrexate prescriptions to be considered exposed, it did not change our results.”

Multinational study

Pierre-Antoine Juge, MD, a rheumatologist at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, and colleagues performed a case-control study among 482 RA patients with ILD and 741 RA patients without ILD in three cohorts: a French discovery cohort, a multinational (Brazilian, Italian, Mexican, United Kingdom, and United States) replication cohort, and a combined cohort. Those with methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis were excluded.

Results showed that relative to peers without ILD, patients with ILD had a lower prevalence of ever having used methotrexate and had received a lower cumulative methotrexate dose, findings that were consistent across all three cohorts.

Methotrexate ever-use was associated with a significantly lower adjusted likelihood of ILD in the discovery cohort (odds ratio, 0.46), the replication cohort (OR, 0.38), and the combined cohort (OR, 0.41). Furthermore, ever-users were less commonly represented among patients with ILD regardless of chest high-resolution CT pattern (usual interstitial pneumonia pattern vs. not).

Finally, methotrexate use appeared to delay the adjusted time to onset of ILD by 3.5 years in the discovery cohort (P = .001), by 3.2 years in the replication cohort (P < .0001), and by 3.5 years in the combined cohort (P < .0001).

“Outside of methotrexate hypersensitivity pneumonitis, methotrexate was not a risk factor for RA-associated ILD in our study. We observed an inverse relationship that was similar whatever the high-resolution CT pattern,” Dr. Juge commented. “But this possible protective effect should be confirmed through a dedicated prospective, randomized, controlled trial.”

“Methotrexate should not be considered as a causal factor for RA-associated ILD, and its [discontinuation] should be discussed through a multidisciplinary discussion,” he recommended. In addition, “this study does not investigate the impact of methotrexate use on RA-associated ILD prognosis.”

The Danish study did not receive any specific funding, and none of its authors reported having any financial disclosures. The multinational study did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Juge disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest, but many of his coauthors reported financial relationships with industry. Dr. Volkmann disclosed consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Forbius, and receiving grant support from Forbius and Corbus.

SOURCES: Cordtz R et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:147-8, Abstract OP0232; Juge P-A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:25, Abstract OP0236.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Being aged older than 65 years was associated with the highest risk of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) needing hospital treatment for COVID-19, according to the first results to be reported from ReCoVery, the German national COVID-19 registry.

Older patients with RMDs were five times more likely than younger patients to be hospitalized if they tested positive for SARS‑CoV‑2 and developed COVID-19 (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4).

The likelihood of hospitalization was also significantly increased by the current or prior use of glucocorticoids (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and by the presence of cardiovascular disease (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.2-5.4).

“The register is a joint initiative of the German Society for Rheumatology and the Justus Liebig University in Giessen,” explained Anne Regierer, MD, during a live session of the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

“The current pandemic has changed all of our lives. For patients it brought a lot of uncertainty and fears,” said Dr. Regierer, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin.

“The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases [IRD] is still largely unknown. We still don’t know whether they have a high risk of getting the infection or whether they have a higher risk of a severer case ... therefore there’s an urgent need to have data to generate evidence for the management of our patients.”

Launched at the end of March 2020, the German registry now includes data on 251 patients – 194 of whom have recovered – provided by more than 200 registered rheumatologists. The registry data have now been integrated into the EULAR COVID-19 Database, which is itself part of a global effort to better understand and optimally manage RMD patients during the pandemic.

“The data presented by Dr. Regierer looked at similar outcomes and found quite similar results, which is reassuring,” Kimme Hyrich, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester (England) and a consultant rheumatologist in the Kellgren Centre for Rheumatology at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said in an interview.

“We are very grateful for this collaboration [with the German society and others]. Our first publication has looked at hospitalization, but with more data we may have the opportunity to look at less-common outcomes [e.g. death, other COVID complications] or within individual diseases or treatments. So far I don’t think we will come to a different conclusion,” observed Dr. Hyrich, who is on the steering committee for the EULAR COVID-19 Database.

“These initial data are reassuring in that the majority of cases of COVID reported to our database have recovered, including those who were hospitalized,” she said.

Current EULAR advice is to continue treatment with glucocorticoids in patients who are being chronically treated, but to use them at the lowest possible dose.

The objectives of this first analysis of the German registry was to provide a description of the patients who did and did not require hospitalization and those who needed ventilation, as well as look at possible risk factors for hospitalization.

Dr. Regierer reported that, of 192 patients they included – all with a positive lab test for SARS-CoV-2 – 128 (67%) did not require hospital admission. Of those that did (n = 64), 43 (22%) did not need ventilation and 21 (11%) did. Fifteen patients died, all of whom had been hospitalized, and all but one of them had needed ventilation.

Concerning the characteristics of the patients, those who needed hospital treatment with and without ventilation were older than those who were not admitted (70 vs. 65 vs. 54 years, respectively).

“Looking at the sexes, the gender distribution is also interesting. We see 69% females in the nonhospitalized patients, 65% of the inpatients without ventilation, but only 43% females in the ventilated patients. So in this group, the male patients are the majority,” Dr. Regierer observed.

Just over half of all patients in the nonhospitalized and the hospitalized without ventilation groups had IRD in remission, but those in the hospitalized with ventilation group less than one-fifth had their IRD under control.

“Of course we have to keep in mind the small sample sizes,” Dr. Regierer said, but the distribution of patients by disease type was “what you’d expect in clinical care.” The majority of patients in each of the three groups had RA (47%, 56%, and 57%), followed by psoriatic arthritis (19%, 7%, and 14%), axial spondyloarthritis (11%, 5%, and 0%), systemic lupus erythematosus (6%, 2%, and 0%), and vasculitis (1%, 5%, and 5%).

Patients who were hospitalized with and without ventilation were more likely to have more than one comorbidity than those who were not hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The most frequent comorbidity was cardiovascular disease with 58% and 76% in the inpatient groups,” Dr. Regierer reported. One-third of the nonhospitalized patients had a cardiovascular comorbidity.

“If we look at pulmonary disease, we see that 38% of the ventilator patients had an underlying pulmonary disease,” she added. This was in comparison with 19% of the hospitalized without ventilation and 13% of the nonhospitalized patients. Diabetes was another common comorbidity in hospitalized patients with (16%) and without (19%) ventilation versus just 2% of nonhospitalized patients. While these and other comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency were associated with higher odds ratios in the multivariate risk factor analysis, they did not reach statistical significance.

With regard to RMD treatments, more than 60% of patients in the hospitalized group had received treatment with glucocorticoids versus 37% of those who did not get admitted. No differences were seen for the other treatments.

Interestingly, “female sex, remission, and use of NSAIDs have an odds ratio smaller than 1. So there might be a lower risk of hospitalization associated with these factors,” Dr. Regierer said.

Dr. Regierer has received grant support and is part of speaker’s bureaus for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hyrich disclosed grant income from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, and Pfizer, and receiving speaker fees from AbbVie.

Adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to the treatment regimen of patients with psoriatic arthritis who failed to reach minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy after 4 or more weeks had more than triple the rate of minimal disease activity after 16 weeks, compared with patients who had their methotrexate dosage escalated but received no second drug, in a multicenter, randomized study with 245 patients.

After 16 weeks, 42% of 123 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with methotrexate and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab achieved minimal disease activity, compared with 13% of 122 patients randomized to receive escalated methotrexate monotherapy to their maximally tolerated dosage or to a maximum of 25 mg/week, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The findings are “supportive of the EULAR recommendations” for managing patients with PsA, said Dr. Coates, a rheumatologist at the University of Oxford (England). The EULAR recommendations call for starting a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis and “inadequate response to at least one [conventional synthetic] DMARD,” such as methotrexate (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;79[6]:700-12). “A proportion of patients treated with methotrexate do well, but for those struggling on methotrexate, these results support use of a TNF inhibitor. It’s a balance of cost and benefit. If TNF inhibitors were as cheap as methotrexate, I suspect that would be first line more frequently,” Dr. Coates said in an interview. In contrast, the PsA management recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology make treatment with a TNF inhibitor first line, before starting with what these guidelines call an oral small molecule, the same as a conventional synthetic DMARD such as methotrexate (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).

The results seen in the CONTROL study with adalimumab would likely be similar using a different TNF inhibitor or an agent that’s an adalimumab biosimilar, Dr. Coates said. The only patients with PsA and not achieving minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy who should not then receive add-on treatment with a TNF inhibitor are those known to have a safety exclusion for this drug class or patients for whom the incremental cost poses a barrier, she added. In addition, patients with more substantial skin involvement may get greater benefit from a different class of bDMARD, such as a drug that inhibits interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 as recommended by the EULAR panel.

“We still get very good results with a TNF inhibitor for psoriasis, but in patients with severe psoriasis there is an argument to use a different drug,” Dr. Coates acknowledged. Skin responses with an IL-17 inhibitor or an IL-12/23 inhibitor “are far better” than with a TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Landewé. He also added the caution that longer-term use of adalimumab “may induce aggravation of PsA in a significant number of patients.”

CONTROL was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Coates has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Landewé has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33, Abstract OP0050.

Adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to the treatment regimen of patients with psoriatic arthritis who failed to reach minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy after 4 or more weeks had more than triple the rate of minimal disease activity after 16 weeks, compared with patients who had their methotrexate dosage escalated but received no second drug, in a multicenter, randomized study with 245 patients.

After 16 weeks, 42% of 123 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with methotrexate and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab achieved minimal disease activity, compared with 13% of 122 patients randomized to receive escalated methotrexate monotherapy to their maximally tolerated dosage or to a maximum of 25 mg/week, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The findings are “supportive of the EULAR recommendations” for managing patients with PsA, said Dr. Coates, a rheumatologist at the University of Oxford (England). The EULAR recommendations call for starting a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis and “inadequate response to at least one [conventional synthetic] DMARD,” such as methotrexate (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;79[6]:700-12). “A proportion of patients treated with methotrexate do well, but for those struggling on methotrexate, these results support use of a TNF inhibitor. It’s a balance of cost and benefit. If TNF inhibitors were as cheap as methotrexate, I suspect that would be first line more frequently,” Dr. Coates said in an interview. In contrast, the PsA management recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology make treatment with a TNF inhibitor first line, before starting with what these guidelines call an oral small molecule, the same as a conventional synthetic DMARD such as methotrexate (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).

The results seen in the CONTROL study with adalimumab would likely be similar using a different TNF inhibitor or an agent that’s an adalimumab biosimilar, Dr. Coates said. The only patients with PsA and not achieving minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy who should not then receive add-on treatment with a TNF inhibitor are those known to have a safety exclusion for this drug class or patients for whom the incremental cost poses a barrier, she added. In addition, patients with more substantial skin involvement may get greater benefit from a different class of bDMARD, such as a drug that inhibits interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 as recommended by the EULAR panel.

“We still get very good results with a TNF inhibitor for psoriasis, but in patients with severe psoriasis there is an argument to use a different drug,” Dr. Coates acknowledged. Skin responses with an IL-17 inhibitor or an IL-12/23 inhibitor “are far better” than with a TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Landewé. He also added the caution that longer-term use of adalimumab “may induce aggravation of PsA in a significant number of patients.”

CONTROL was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Coates has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Landewé has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33, Abstract OP0050.

Adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to the treatment regimen of patients with psoriatic arthritis who failed to reach minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy after 4 or more weeks had more than triple the rate of minimal disease activity after 16 weeks, compared with patients who had their methotrexate dosage escalated but received no second drug, in a multicenter, randomized study with 245 patients.

After 16 weeks, 42% of 123 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with methotrexate and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor adalimumab achieved minimal disease activity, compared with 13% of 122 patients randomized to receive escalated methotrexate monotherapy to their maximally tolerated dosage or to a maximum of 25 mg/week, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

The findings are “supportive of the EULAR recommendations” for managing patients with PsA, said Dr. Coates, a rheumatologist at the University of Oxford (England). The EULAR recommendations call for starting a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) in patients with PsA and peripheral arthritis and “inadequate response to at least one [conventional synthetic] DMARD,” such as methotrexate (Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;79[6]:700-12). “A proportion of patients treated with methotrexate do well, but for those struggling on methotrexate, these results support use of a TNF inhibitor. It’s a balance of cost and benefit. If TNF inhibitors were as cheap as methotrexate, I suspect that would be first line more frequently,” Dr. Coates said in an interview. In contrast, the PsA management recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology make treatment with a TNF inhibitor first line, before starting with what these guidelines call an oral small molecule, the same as a conventional synthetic DMARD such as methotrexate (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;71[1]:5-32).

The results seen in the CONTROL study with adalimumab would likely be similar using a different TNF inhibitor or an agent that’s an adalimumab biosimilar, Dr. Coates said. The only patients with PsA and not achieving minimal disease activity on methotrexate monotherapy who should not then receive add-on treatment with a TNF inhibitor are those known to have a safety exclusion for this drug class or patients for whom the incremental cost poses a barrier, she added. In addition, patients with more substantial skin involvement may get greater benefit from a different class of bDMARD, such as a drug that inhibits interleukin-17 or IL-12 and -23 as recommended by the EULAR panel.

“We still get very good results with a TNF inhibitor for psoriasis, but in patients with severe psoriasis there is an argument to use a different drug,” Dr. Coates acknowledged. Skin responses with an IL-17 inhibitor or an IL-12/23 inhibitor “are far better” than with a TNF inhibitor, said Dr. Landewé. He also added the caution that longer-term use of adalimumab “may induce aggravation of PsA in a significant number of patients.”

CONTROL was sponsored by AbbVie, the company that markets adalimumab (Humira). Dr. Coates has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Amgen, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Jansen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Landewé has been a consultant to AbbVie, as well as to Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79[suppl 1]:33, Abstract OP0050.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had the highest risk of developing herpes zoster among newer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data released from the German biologics registry.

These are believed to be the first European data on the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors and showed that the crude incidence rate of herpes zoster per 1,000 patient-years was 24.9 with JAK inhibitors, compared with just 5.8 for controls taking conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

The risk of herpes zoster was also increased with other biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs that were assessed, with crude rates per 1,000 patient-years of 10.4 for monoclonal tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 10.5 for B-cell targeted therapies, 9.4 for T-cell costimulation modulators, 9.0 for soluble TNF receptors, and 8.5 for interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors.

Overall, JAK inhibitor treatment was associated with a fivefold higher risk of herpes zoster (hazard ratio, 5.0; P < .0001), compared with the control csDMARD population after adjustment using an inverse probability weights (IPW) method.

“The general risk of herpes zoster is [twofold] higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis when you compare it with the general population,” said Anja Strangfeld, MD of the German Research Center, Berlin, and one of the three RABBIT [Rheumatoide Arthritis: Biobachtung der Biologika-Therapie] principal investigators.

“If you think of all the treatments that RA patients get, then the risk is further increased with bDMARD and [JAK inhibitor] treatments,” she added in an interview. While the risk was highest with JAK inhibitors, “we also saw that monoclonal TNF antibodies as well as all the other biologic DMARD treatments have a higher risk of herpes zoster in RA patients, compared to csDMARD therapy,” Dr. Strangfeld said.

Adjusted IPW HR for the other RA treatments showed an increased herpes zoster risk for all but the soluble TNF receptor agents, at 1.6 for IL-6 inhibitors (P = .0045) and monoclonal TNFi antibodies (P = .0003), and 1.7 for B-cell targeted therapies (P = .00026) and T-cell costimulation modulators (P = .0048).

Dr. Strangfeld presented these data during the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. The analysis included 12,470 patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT from 2007 onward and who had been treated with monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies, cell-targeted therapies, and tsDMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. In all, at the data cutoff at the end of April 2019, 452 cases of herpes zoster were recorded in 433 patients, of which 52 cases were serious.

“The reactivation of the varicella zoster virus causing the herpes zoster is triggered by a decline of cellular immunity. This can be due to aging or immune suppression of any kind,” Dr. Strangfeld said in her presentation.

“The Cox regression [analysis] revealed that higher age and intake of glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster,” she reported, with a dose dependent increase with glucocorticoids. IPW HR for age per 10 years was 1.3 (P < .0001) and 1.9 (P = .0022) for higher doses of glucocorticoids (>10 vs. 0 mg/day).

Commenting on the study, rheumatologist and epidemiologist Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, said: “This is a very interesting study. The results are confident and precise. The frequency of herpes zoster infection [based on crude incidence rate estimates] is very high. However, we must focus on the [multivariable with IPW] analysis after taking into account baseline risk.”

Dr. Carmona, who is the chair of the congress’s Abstract Selection Committee and is the scientific director of the Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética in Madrid, added: “Having a disease with high levels of activity or a disease refractory to treatments [both of which were very likely used in creating the IPW] levels off the risk a bit. Also, because RA by itself, glucocorticoids, and age all increase the risk. Still, jakinibs [JAK inhibitors] stand out as the treatment related to higher risk of herpes zoster infection.”

Dr. Strangfeld and fellow RABBIT investigators have previously looked at the risk of herpes zoster in patients treated with anti–TNF-alpha agents (JAMA. 2009;301[7]:737-44). They found that monoclonal anti–TNF-alpha agents may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, which is now confirmed by the current analysis. The reason for looking at herpes zoster risk again is that since that first analysis, many more therapies have become available for RA during the past 10 years, notably the tsDMARDs.

Herpes zoster may not always be a serious event, Dr. Strangfeld said in the interview, “but it diminishes your quality of life; it can also be associated with pain and may be followed by postherpetic neuralgia, which is very painful.” With new herpes zoster vaccinations available, it is now possible to vaccinate patients more easily. “This is advisable for all kinds of treatments,” she said.

“What we found was quite in agreement with the data that we know from the U.S., from the observational studies, for example from the Corrona database,” Dr. Strangfeld stated. The key finding is that the risk of herpes zoster is increased to some level, almost regardless of which drug is chosen, she said. “This gives a clear message that systematic herpes zoster vaccination should be done in patients with RA,” she suggested.

The German biologics registry RABBIT is supported by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Carmona had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Strangfeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:150. Abstract OP0238.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had the highest risk of developing herpes zoster among newer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data released from the German biologics registry.

These are believed to be the first European data on the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors and showed that the crude incidence rate of herpes zoster per 1,000 patient-years was 24.9 with JAK inhibitors, compared with just 5.8 for controls taking conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

The risk of herpes zoster was also increased with other biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs that were assessed, with crude rates per 1,000 patient-years of 10.4 for monoclonal tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 10.5 for B-cell targeted therapies, 9.4 for T-cell costimulation modulators, 9.0 for soluble TNF receptors, and 8.5 for interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors.

Overall, JAK inhibitor treatment was associated with a fivefold higher risk of herpes zoster (hazard ratio, 5.0; P < .0001), compared with the control csDMARD population after adjustment using an inverse probability weights (IPW) method.

“The general risk of herpes zoster is [twofold] higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis when you compare it with the general population,” said Anja Strangfeld, MD of the German Research Center, Berlin, and one of the three RABBIT [Rheumatoide Arthritis: Biobachtung der Biologika-Therapie] principal investigators.

“If you think of all the treatments that RA patients get, then the risk is further increased with bDMARD and [JAK inhibitor] treatments,” she added in an interview. While the risk was highest with JAK inhibitors, “we also saw that monoclonal TNF antibodies as well as all the other biologic DMARD treatments have a higher risk of herpes zoster in RA patients, compared to csDMARD therapy,” Dr. Strangfeld said.

Adjusted IPW HR for the other RA treatments showed an increased herpes zoster risk for all but the soluble TNF receptor agents, at 1.6 for IL-6 inhibitors (P = .0045) and monoclonal TNFi antibodies (P = .0003), and 1.7 for B-cell targeted therapies (P = .00026) and T-cell costimulation modulators (P = .0048).

Dr. Strangfeld presented these data during the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. The analysis included 12,470 patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT from 2007 onward and who had been treated with monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies, cell-targeted therapies, and tsDMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. In all, at the data cutoff at the end of April 2019, 452 cases of herpes zoster were recorded in 433 patients, of which 52 cases were serious.

“The reactivation of the varicella zoster virus causing the herpes zoster is triggered by a decline of cellular immunity. This can be due to aging or immune suppression of any kind,” Dr. Strangfeld said in her presentation.

“The Cox regression [analysis] revealed that higher age and intake of glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster,” she reported, with a dose dependent increase with glucocorticoids. IPW HR for age per 10 years was 1.3 (P < .0001) and 1.9 (P = .0022) for higher doses of glucocorticoids (>10 vs. 0 mg/day).

Commenting on the study, rheumatologist and epidemiologist Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, said: “This is a very interesting study. The results are confident and precise. The frequency of herpes zoster infection [based on crude incidence rate estimates] is very high. However, we must focus on the [multivariable with IPW] analysis after taking into account baseline risk.”

Dr. Carmona, who is the chair of the congress’s Abstract Selection Committee and is the scientific director of the Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética in Madrid, added: “Having a disease with high levels of activity or a disease refractory to treatments [both of which were very likely used in creating the IPW] levels off the risk a bit. Also, because RA by itself, glucocorticoids, and age all increase the risk. Still, jakinibs [JAK inhibitors] stand out as the treatment related to higher risk of herpes zoster infection.”

Dr. Strangfeld and fellow RABBIT investigators have previously looked at the risk of herpes zoster in patients treated with anti–TNF-alpha agents (JAMA. 2009;301[7]:737-44). They found that monoclonal anti–TNF-alpha agents may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, which is now confirmed by the current analysis. The reason for looking at herpes zoster risk again is that since that first analysis, many more therapies have become available for RA during the past 10 years, notably the tsDMARDs.

Herpes zoster may not always be a serious event, Dr. Strangfeld said in the interview, “but it diminishes your quality of life; it can also be associated with pain and may be followed by postherpetic neuralgia, which is very painful.” With new herpes zoster vaccinations available, it is now possible to vaccinate patients more easily. “This is advisable for all kinds of treatments,” she said.

“What we found was quite in agreement with the data that we know from the U.S., from the observational studies, for example from the Corrona database,” Dr. Strangfeld stated. The key finding is that the risk of herpes zoster is increased to some level, almost regardless of which drug is chosen, she said. “This gives a clear message that systematic herpes zoster vaccination should be done in patients with RA,” she suggested.

The German biologics registry RABBIT is supported by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Carmona had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Strangfeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:150. Abstract OP0238.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors had the highest risk of developing herpes zoster among newer disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to data released from the German biologics registry.

These are believed to be the first European data on the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors and showed that the crude incidence rate of herpes zoster per 1,000 patient-years was 24.9 with JAK inhibitors, compared with just 5.8 for controls taking conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

The risk of herpes zoster was also increased with other biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs that were assessed, with crude rates per 1,000 patient-years of 10.4 for monoclonal tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), 10.5 for B-cell targeted therapies, 9.4 for T-cell costimulation modulators, 9.0 for soluble TNF receptors, and 8.5 for interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors.

Overall, JAK inhibitor treatment was associated with a fivefold higher risk of herpes zoster (hazard ratio, 5.0; P < .0001), compared with the control csDMARD population after adjustment using an inverse probability weights (IPW) method.

“The general risk of herpes zoster is [twofold] higher in patients with rheumatoid arthritis when you compare it with the general population,” said Anja Strangfeld, MD of the German Research Center, Berlin, and one of the three RABBIT [Rheumatoide Arthritis: Biobachtung der Biologika-Therapie] principal investigators.

“If you think of all the treatments that RA patients get, then the risk is further increased with bDMARD and [JAK inhibitor] treatments,” she added in an interview. While the risk was highest with JAK inhibitors, “we also saw that monoclonal TNF antibodies as well as all the other biologic DMARD treatments have a higher risk of herpes zoster in RA patients, compared to csDMARD therapy,” Dr. Strangfeld said.

Adjusted IPW HR for the other RA treatments showed an increased herpes zoster risk for all but the soluble TNF receptor agents, at 1.6 for IL-6 inhibitors (P = .0045) and monoclonal TNFi antibodies (P = .0003), and 1.7 for B-cell targeted therapies (P = .00026) and T-cell costimulation modulators (P = .0048).

Dr. Strangfeld presented these data during the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19. The analysis included 12,470 patients with RA enrolled in RABBIT from 2007 onward and who had been treated with monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies, cell-targeted therapies, and tsDMARDs such as JAK inhibitors. In all, at the data cutoff at the end of April 2019, 452 cases of herpes zoster were recorded in 433 patients, of which 52 cases were serious.

“The reactivation of the varicella zoster virus causing the herpes zoster is triggered by a decline of cellular immunity. This can be due to aging or immune suppression of any kind,” Dr. Strangfeld said in her presentation.

“The Cox regression [analysis] revealed that higher age and intake of glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster,” she reported, with a dose dependent increase with glucocorticoids. IPW HR for age per 10 years was 1.3 (P < .0001) and 1.9 (P = .0022) for higher doses of glucocorticoids (>10 vs. 0 mg/day).

Commenting on the study, rheumatologist and epidemiologist Loreto Carmona, MD, PhD, said: “This is a very interesting study. The results are confident and precise. The frequency of herpes zoster infection [based on crude incidence rate estimates] is very high. However, we must focus on the [multivariable with IPW] analysis after taking into account baseline risk.”

Dr. Carmona, who is the chair of the congress’s Abstract Selection Committee and is the scientific director of the Instituto de Salud Musculoesquelética in Madrid, added: “Having a disease with high levels of activity or a disease refractory to treatments [both of which were very likely used in creating the IPW] levels off the risk a bit. Also, because RA by itself, glucocorticoids, and age all increase the risk. Still, jakinibs [JAK inhibitors] stand out as the treatment related to higher risk of herpes zoster infection.”

Dr. Strangfeld and fellow RABBIT investigators have previously looked at the risk of herpes zoster in patients treated with anti–TNF-alpha agents (JAMA. 2009;301[7]:737-44). They found that monoclonal anti–TNF-alpha agents may be associated with increased risk of herpes zoster, which is now confirmed by the current analysis. The reason for looking at herpes zoster risk again is that since that first analysis, many more therapies have become available for RA during the past 10 years, notably the tsDMARDs.

Herpes zoster may not always be a serious event, Dr. Strangfeld said in the interview, “but it diminishes your quality of life; it can also be associated with pain and may be followed by postherpetic neuralgia, which is very painful.” With new herpes zoster vaccinations available, it is now possible to vaccinate patients more easily. “This is advisable for all kinds of treatments,” she said.

“What we found was quite in agreement with the data that we know from the U.S., from the observational studies, for example from the Corrona database,” Dr. Strangfeld stated. The key finding is that the risk of herpes zoster is increased to some level, almost regardless of which drug is chosen, she said. “This gives a clear message that systematic herpes zoster vaccination should be done in patients with RA,” she suggested.

The German biologics registry RABBIT is supported by a joint unconditional grant from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Hexal, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Strangfeld has received speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. Dr. Carmona had no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Strangfeld A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:150. Abstract OP0238.