ACR Annual Meeting 2020

Oxidative stress may account for the “lipid paradox,” a higher incidence of heart disease burden found in nonobese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). George Karpouzas, MD, an investigator at the Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, St, Torrance, Calif., discussed this exploratory finding at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

A complex dynamic exists between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) events in RA patients, said Dr. Karpouzas, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chief of the division of rheumatology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Lower lipid levels, specifically total cholesterol and to a lesser extent LDL, may be associated with higher risk,” he said. One recent study found that coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were four times higher in RA patients with lower LDL concentrations (> 70 mg/dL) than those in control groups. “This was especially true in patients who were nonobese, non-Hispanic Whites and never smokers,” said Dr. Karpouzas. Other studies have reported this association between low LDL and increased CVD risk.

These paradoxes led to several questions: Does obesity modify the effect of LDL on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in RA and does it moderate the effect of LDL on coronary plaque burden and progression? Do LDL particle composition and oxidation variations underlie the paradoxical association of low LDL with higher coronary atherosclerosis burden in RA? To find answers, Dr. Karpouzas’ team in the Prospective Evaluation of Latent Coronary Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PROTECT-RA) trial studied a cohort of 150 established RA patients without symptoms or diagnosis of CV disease.

Dr. Karpouzas presented two oral abstracts that summarized this research during the ACR 2020 session, “RA, diagnosis, manifestations and outcomes: heart of the matter,” which was held virtually.
 

Higher plaque burden seen in nonobese patients

In one part of the study, patients underwent baseline cardiac coronary CT angiography (CTA) over 1 year (2010-2011). Investigators evaluated CAC scores, segment involvement scores (SIS), segment stenosis scores (SSS), and extensive and obstructive disease. Low LDL was defined as < 70 mg/dL, obesity as a waist to height ratio of > 0.58 squared.

Investigators in follow-up work (2017-2018) evaluated for plaque progression, prospectively recording all cardiovascular disease events such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable models assessed the effects of LDL lower than 70 mg/dL, obesity, and their interaction, accounting for factors such as age, sex, statin use, diabetes and hypertension.
 

Four LDL obesity cohorts

Nonobese RA patients with low LDL exhibited the highest plaque burden. “Despite no differences in RA inflammation, patients in this group were more likely to exhibit high levels of LDL oxidation,” Dr. Karpouzas said in an interview. “Nonobese patients with low LDL more likely exhibited new coronary plaque formation as well as increased stenotic severity of prevalent plaque after adjustments for relevant covariates,” he added.

The study’s observational nature exposed it to biases and unmeasured confounding, Dr. Karpouzas emphasized. Because it took place in a single center, the results might not be generalizable to ethnically and racially diverse cohorts. Patients with calcifications, extensive or obstructive coronary plaque at baseline scan received more aggressive treatments, which could have slowed CVD event risk and plaque progression. Investigators cautioned that the results should be seen as “exploratory,” given that CVD event analysis wasn’t applied to the original study design.
 

The oxidation-LDL connection

Another arm of the study examined the oxidation association question. Investigators did a similar analysis of the same patients but also evaluated for cholesterol content, Lp(a) mass, OxLDL levels, IgG and IgM anti-OxLDL and apoB100 immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines.

RA patients with LDL lower than 70 mg/dL had higher SSS and CAC scores and were more likely to have extensive or obstructive plaque. Statin-naive patients with lower LDL exhibited greater LDL oxidation than higher LDL groups. In addition, those with lower LDL had higher anti-OxLDL and apoB100 than patients with higher LDL.

“Oxidation makes the cholesterol more ‘sticky,’ allowing it to penetrate into the walls of the endothelium, and changes macrophages to foam cells. This malignant process is very powerful and can potentially increase atheroma burden,” study coauthor Matthew Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at UCLA and endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute, said in an interview.

Investigators also found an independent association between Lp(a) content and LDL oxidation. This association seemed strong in patients with lower LDL compared to higher LDL groups. In addition, “greater oxidation and immune recognition of oxLDL further associated with higher IL-6 elaboration which may in turn augment atherosclerosis burden in the low LDL group,” said Dr. Karpouzas.

The analysis did not explore alternate mechanisms such as increased cholesterol loading capacity, lower efflux capacity or increased hepatocyte uptake through LDL-R upregulation, a key limitation. Dr. Karpouzas also acknowledged that higher cumulative inflammatory burden incurred before evaluating low LDL patients at baseline may have led to greater coronary plaque burden.

Overall, the study shows that low LDL is not protective in this population, said Dr. Budoff. “Low LDL patients who have atherosclerosis should be treated with statins and other therapies to lower their CV risk.”
 

Larger studies to confirm associations

Attendees of the ACR 2020 session called for additional studies to confirm that LDL oxidation leads to increased coronary atherosclerotic burden in RA patients.

The study provides “mechanistic insight into this important problem for patients with RA,” noted Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Some of the patients studied were on lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, though the statistical analysis adjusted for use of these medications, noted Dr. Sparks. “It is possible that excess systemic inflammation alone is responsible for changes in LDL oxidation that may ultimately lead to cardiovascular disease,” he offered.

Future mechanistic and interventional studies related specifically to LDL oxidation “should establish the importance of this pathway in the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with RA,” said Dr. Sparks.

Large studies of patients with different BMI and LDL values followed prospectively for CV events would be ideal, said Joel M. Kremer, MD, president of the Corrona Research Foundation and founder of Corrona, a biopharma data solutions firm. Investigators would need to follow patients for several years. And, such a venture might face some obstacles. “The practical impediments and cost would be substantial. Also, as LDL oxidation may be related to disease activity, there would be ethical and pragmatic issues associated with controlling disease activity in these patients. This would obscure these outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Kremer.

Dr. Karpouzas receives grant and research support from the American Heart Association and Pfizer-Aspire. Dr. Budoff receives grant support from General Electric.

rhnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Karpouzas G et al. ACR 2020. Abstract 0485 and Abstract 0486.

Oxidative stress may account for the “lipid paradox,” a higher incidence of heart disease burden found in nonobese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). George Karpouzas, MD, an investigator at the Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, St, Torrance, Calif., discussed this exploratory finding at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

A complex dynamic exists between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) events in RA patients, said Dr. Karpouzas, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chief of the division of rheumatology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Lower lipid levels, specifically total cholesterol and to a lesser extent LDL, may be associated with higher risk,” he said. One recent study found that coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were four times higher in RA patients with lower LDL concentrations (> 70 mg/dL) than those in control groups. “This was especially true in patients who were nonobese, non-Hispanic Whites and never smokers,” said Dr. Karpouzas. Other studies have reported this association between low LDL and increased CVD risk.

These paradoxes led to several questions: Does obesity modify the effect of LDL on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in RA and does it moderate the effect of LDL on coronary plaque burden and progression? Do LDL particle composition and oxidation variations underlie the paradoxical association of low LDL with higher coronary atherosclerosis burden in RA? To find answers, Dr. Karpouzas’ team in the Prospective Evaluation of Latent Coronary Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PROTECT-RA) trial studied a cohort of 150 established RA patients without symptoms or diagnosis of CV disease.

Dr. Karpouzas presented two oral abstracts that summarized this research during the ACR 2020 session, “RA, diagnosis, manifestations and outcomes: heart of the matter,” which was held virtually.
 

Higher plaque burden seen in nonobese patients

In one part of the study, patients underwent baseline cardiac coronary CT angiography (CTA) over 1 year (2010-2011). Investigators evaluated CAC scores, segment involvement scores (SIS), segment stenosis scores (SSS), and extensive and obstructive disease. Low LDL was defined as < 70 mg/dL, obesity as a waist to height ratio of > 0.58 squared.

Investigators in follow-up work (2017-2018) evaluated for plaque progression, prospectively recording all cardiovascular disease events such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable models assessed the effects of LDL lower than 70 mg/dL, obesity, and their interaction, accounting for factors such as age, sex, statin use, diabetes and hypertension.
 

Four LDL obesity cohorts

Nonobese RA patients with low LDL exhibited the highest plaque burden. “Despite no differences in RA inflammation, patients in this group were more likely to exhibit high levels of LDL oxidation,” Dr. Karpouzas said in an interview. “Nonobese patients with low LDL more likely exhibited new coronary plaque formation as well as increased stenotic severity of prevalent plaque after adjustments for relevant covariates,” he added.

The study’s observational nature exposed it to biases and unmeasured confounding, Dr. Karpouzas emphasized. Because it took place in a single center, the results might not be generalizable to ethnically and racially diverse cohorts. Patients with calcifications, extensive or obstructive coronary plaque at baseline scan received more aggressive treatments, which could have slowed CVD event risk and plaque progression. Investigators cautioned that the results should be seen as “exploratory,” given that CVD event analysis wasn’t applied to the original study design.
 

The oxidation-LDL connection

Another arm of the study examined the oxidation association question. Investigators did a similar analysis of the same patients but also evaluated for cholesterol content, Lp(a) mass, OxLDL levels, IgG and IgM anti-OxLDL and apoB100 immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines.

RA patients with LDL lower than 70 mg/dL had higher SSS and CAC scores and were more likely to have extensive or obstructive plaque. Statin-naive patients with lower LDL exhibited greater LDL oxidation than higher LDL groups. In addition, those with lower LDL had higher anti-OxLDL and apoB100 than patients with higher LDL.

“Oxidation makes the cholesterol more ‘sticky,’ allowing it to penetrate into the walls of the endothelium, and changes macrophages to foam cells. This malignant process is very powerful and can potentially increase atheroma burden,” study coauthor Matthew Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at UCLA and endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute, said in an interview.

Investigators also found an independent association between Lp(a) content and LDL oxidation. This association seemed strong in patients with lower LDL compared to higher LDL groups. In addition, “greater oxidation and immune recognition of oxLDL further associated with higher IL-6 elaboration which may in turn augment atherosclerosis burden in the low LDL group,” said Dr. Karpouzas.

The analysis did not explore alternate mechanisms such as increased cholesterol loading capacity, lower efflux capacity or increased hepatocyte uptake through LDL-R upregulation, a key limitation. Dr. Karpouzas also acknowledged that higher cumulative inflammatory burden incurred before evaluating low LDL patients at baseline may have led to greater coronary plaque burden.

Overall, the study shows that low LDL is not protective in this population, said Dr. Budoff. “Low LDL patients who have atherosclerosis should be treated with statins and other therapies to lower their CV risk.”
 

Larger studies to confirm associations

Attendees of the ACR 2020 session called for additional studies to confirm that LDL oxidation leads to increased coronary atherosclerotic burden in RA patients.

The study provides “mechanistic insight into this important problem for patients with RA,” noted Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Some of the patients studied were on lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, though the statistical analysis adjusted for use of these medications, noted Dr. Sparks. “It is possible that excess systemic inflammation alone is responsible for changes in LDL oxidation that may ultimately lead to cardiovascular disease,” he offered.

Future mechanistic and interventional studies related specifically to LDL oxidation “should establish the importance of this pathway in the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with RA,” said Dr. Sparks.

Large studies of patients with different BMI and LDL values followed prospectively for CV events would be ideal, said Joel M. Kremer, MD, president of the Corrona Research Foundation and founder of Corrona, a biopharma data solutions firm. Investigators would need to follow patients for several years. And, such a venture might face some obstacles. “The practical impediments and cost would be substantial. Also, as LDL oxidation may be related to disease activity, there would be ethical and pragmatic issues associated with controlling disease activity in these patients. This would obscure these outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Kremer.

Dr. Karpouzas receives grant and research support from the American Heart Association and Pfizer-Aspire. Dr. Budoff receives grant support from General Electric.

rhnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Karpouzas G et al. ACR 2020. Abstract 0485 and Abstract 0486.

Oxidative stress may account for the “lipid paradox,” a higher incidence of heart disease burden found in nonobese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL). George Karpouzas, MD, an investigator at the Lundquist Institute of Biomedical Innovation, St, Torrance, Calif., discussed this exploratory finding at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

A complex dynamic exists between traditional risk factors and cardiovascular (CV) events in RA patients, said Dr. Karpouzas, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chief of the division of rheumatology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. “Lower lipid levels, specifically total cholesterol and to a lesser extent LDL, may be associated with higher risk,” he said. One recent study found that coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores were four times higher in RA patients with lower LDL concentrations (> 70 mg/dL) than those in control groups. “This was especially true in patients who were nonobese, non-Hispanic Whites and never smokers,” said Dr. Karpouzas. Other studies have reported this association between low LDL and increased CVD risk.

These paradoxes led to several questions: Does obesity modify the effect of LDL on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in RA and does it moderate the effect of LDL on coronary plaque burden and progression? Do LDL particle composition and oxidation variations underlie the paradoxical association of low LDL with higher coronary atherosclerosis burden in RA? To find answers, Dr. Karpouzas’ team in the Prospective Evaluation of Latent Coronary Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis (PROTECT-RA) trial studied a cohort of 150 established RA patients without symptoms or diagnosis of CV disease.

Dr. Karpouzas presented two oral abstracts that summarized this research during the ACR 2020 session, “RA, diagnosis, manifestations and outcomes: heart of the matter,” which was held virtually.
 

Higher plaque burden seen in nonobese patients

In one part of the study, patients underwent baseline cardiac coronary CT angiography (CTA) over 1 year (2010-2011). Investigators evaluated CAC scores, segment involvement scores (SIS), segment stenosis scores (SSS), and extensive and obstructive disease. Low LDL was defined as < 70 mg/dL, obesity as a waist to height ratio of > 0.58 squared.

Investigators in follow-up work (2017-2018) evaluated for plaque progression, prospectively recording all cardiovascular disease events such as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, and heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable models assessed the effects of LDL lower than 70 mg/dL, obesity, and their interaction, accounting for factors such as age, sex, statin use, diabetes and hypertension.
 

Four LDL obesity cohorts

Nonobese RA patients with low LDL exhibited the highest plaque burden. “Despite no differences in RA inflammation, patients in this group were more likely to exhibit high levels of LDL oxidation,” Dr. Karpouzas said in an interview. “Nonobese patients with low LDL more likely exhibited new coronary plaque formation as well as increased stenotic severity of prevalent plaque after adjustments for relevant covariates,” he added.

The study’s observational nature exposed it to biases and unmeasured confounding, Dr. Karpouzas emphasized. Because it took place in a single center, the results might not be generalizable to ethnically and racially diverse cohorts. Patients with calcifications, extensive or obstructive coronary plaque at baseline scan received more aggressive treatments, which could have slowed CVD event risk and plaque progression. Investigators cautioned that the results should be seen as “exploratory,” given that CVD event analysis wasn’t applied to the original study design.
 

The oxidation-LDL connection

Another arm of the study examined the oxidation association question. Investigators did a similar analysis of the same patients but also evaluated for cholesterol content, Lp(a) mass, OxLDL levels, IgG and IgM anti-OxLDL and apoB100 immune complexes and proinflammatory cytokines.

RA patients with LDL lower than 70 mg/dL had higher SSS and CAC scores and were more likely to have extensive or obstructive plaque. Statin-naive patients with lower LDL exhibited greater LDL oxidation than higher LDL groups. In addition, those with lower LDL had higher anti-OxLDL and apoB100 than patients with higher LDL.

“Oxidation makes the cholesterol more ‘sticky,’ allowing it to penetrate into the walls of the endothelium, and changes macrophages to foam cells. This malignant process is very powerful and can potentially increase atheroma burden,” study coauthor Matthew Budoff, MD, professor of medicine at UCLA and endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute, said in an interview.

Investigators also found an independent association between Lp(a) content and LDL oxidation. This association seemed strong in patients with lower LDL compared to higher LDL groups. In addition, “greater oxidation and immune recognition of oxLDL further associated with higher IL-6 elaboration which may in turn augment atherosclerosis burden in the low LDL group,” said Dr. Karpouzas.

The analysis did not explore alternate mechanisms such as increased cholesterol loading capacity, lower efflux capacity or increased hepatocyte uptake through LDL-R upregulation, a key limitation. Dr. Karpouzas also acknowledged that higher cumulative inflammatory burden incurred before evaluating low LDL patients at baseline may have led to greater coronary plaque burden.

Overall, the study shows that low LDL is not protective in this population, said Dr. Budoff. “Low LDL patients who have atherosclerosis should be treated with statins and other therapies to lower their CV risk.”
 

Larger studies to confirm associations

Attendees of the ACR 2020 session called for additional studies to confirm that LDL oxidation leads to increased coronary atherosclerotic burden in RA patients.

The study provides “mechanistic insight into this important problem for patients with RA,” noted Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

Some of the patients studied were on lipid-lowering drugs such as statins, though the statistical analysis adjusted for use of these medications, noted Dr. Sparks. “It is possible that excess systemic inflammation alone is responsible for changes in LDL oxidation that may ultimately lead to cardiovascular disease,” he offered.

Future mechanistic and interventional studies related specifically to LDL oxidation “should establish the importance of this pathway in the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with RA,” said Dr. Sparks.

Large studies of patients with different BMI and LDL values followed prospectively for CV events would be ideal, said Joel M. Kremer, MD, president of the Corrona Research Foundation and founder of Corrona, a biopharma data solutions firm. Investigators would need to follow patients for several years. And, such a venture might face some obstacles. “The practical impediments and cost would be substantial. Also, as LDL oxidation may be related to disease activity, there would be ethical and pragmatic issues associated with controlling disease activity in these patients. This would obscure these outcomes of interest,” said Dr. Kremer.

Dr. Karpouzas receives grant and research support from the American Heart Association and Pfizer-Aspire. Dr. Budoff receives grant support from General Electric.

rhnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Karpouzas G et al. ACR 2020. Abstract 0485 and Abstract 0486.

What is the next step in treatment after a person with rheumatoid arthritis fails to adequately respond to methotrexate – a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor or a biologic? That was the focus of a lively debate at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Vibeke Strand, MD, argued that JAK inhibitors offer the distinct advantage of a faster clinical response than biologics, meaning that decisions to change therapy based on nonresponse or adverse effects can be made earlier in a treatment plan.

Michael Weinblatt, MD, countered that the faster-response advantage is offset by potential adverse events associated with the JAK inhibitors, including increased risk of herpes zoster infection, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). He suggested switching patients to a biologic instead.

In addition, the debate was held just days before the ACR released a proposed guideline for the management of RA. This update to the 2015 guidance is the first to prioritize the order of RA treatments, emphasizing that clinicians should maximize methotrexate therapy before switching RA patients to a JAK inhibitor or a biologic. Release of the full guidelines is pending, and it remains unclear if the ACR provides any guidance regarding the “jakinib” versus biologic decision.

Interestingly, the debate did not hinge on any differences in efficacy. Both speakers pointed to similar efficacy between anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and JAK inhibitors, and despite working on different pathways, among the individual JAK inhibitors as well.
 

Is timing of the essence?

Knowing whether a person with RA responds to a JAK inhibitor more quickly than to a biologic is a major advantage, said Dr. Strand, of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The argument that I am making is that patients are more responsive if treated earlier in the disease process and they are less treatment-experienced.”

Dr. Strand said the advantages extend to remission as well. “When patients are aware of early improvements, their adherence is increased. Remission is more likely because it occurs earlier.”

“I will certainly grant it to Vibeke that jakinibs work much faster,” said Dr. Weinblatt, chair of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. However, he added, “my bias is that you give patients an anti-TNF therapy first, and if they are not responding by 12 weeks, you move on to another class of drugs, perhaps even the jakinibs.”

Herpes zoster risk

Dr. Strand and Dr. Weinblatt addressed potential adverse events associated with both classes of agents. For the JAK inhibitors, concerns include herpes zoster infections, increased VTE and ATE incidence, and largely unknown risks during pregnancy and lactation. For the anti-TNF agents, safety concerns include reactivation of tuberculosis, fungal infections, demyelinating syndrome, and skin cancer.

With the shortest half-life of any therapeutic class in rheumatology, adverse events with JAK inhibitors often can resolve quickly, Dr. Strand said.

The increased risk of herpes zoster is important, she added, “but we have a recombinant vaccination that works. It’s quite effective.”

Dr. Weinblatt pointed out that all the JAK inhibitors carry this increase herpes zoster risk, which is related to their mechanism of action. There is a catch with the vaccine, however, he added. The vaccine is approved for treatment of patients 50 years and older. For younger people with RA starting a JAK inhibitor, the cost is out-of-pocket.
 

Evaluating risk of emboli

The incidence of VTE is about two times higher among people with RA, compared with the general population, Dr. Strand said, with research suggesting the majority of risk resides among people with a previous event. However, she added, an emerging profile of thromboembolic events associated with JAK inhibitors is “considered a class effect by the FDA.”

One exception in the JAK inhibitor class could be tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which might carry less risk because “most of the data with tofacitinib are quite good,” Dr. Weinblatt said. One study presented at ACR 2018, for example, showed a similar VTE rate between tofacitinib and TNF inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the FDA issued a boxed warning in July 2019 about elevated risks of blood clots and death at a higher dose of tofacitinib. The concerns stem from an open-label, endpoint-driven study mandated by the FDA to explore major adverse cardiac events. “There was a clinically important and statistically significant occurrence of pulmonary embolism and VTE, and an increase in mortality in the 10-mg dose group as opposed to the anti-TNF therapies,” Dr. Weinblatt said. As a result, the FDA requested patients on the 10-mg twice-daily dose be transitioned to the 5-mg twice-daily dose.

The package labeling for the JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) feature warnings about increased risk for thromboembolic events. Furthermore, the labeling for filgotinib, a JAK inhibitor in development that received a complete response letter from the FDA in August 2020, is expected to carry the same warning.An unanswered question remains on why this class of agents potentially increases risk of thromboembolism. “We’re all uncomfortable because there is no known mechanism of JAK inhibition that should lead to this,” he added. Another unresolved issue is whether or not patients prescribed a JAK inhibitor should also be prescribed an anticoagulant.
 

Anti-TNF adverse events

Infections, primarily reactivation of tuberculosis and an increased risk for fungal disease, are concerns with the anti-TNF agents. However, the risk is not restricted to this class. “Greater risk of infection is seen with all our immune-modulating therapies,” Dr. Weinblatt said.

Rare adverse events include demyelinating syndromes, hematologic toxicity, and a worsening of heart failure in some cases.

“Despite a concern about malignancy, the only defined cancer reported over 22 years of use was skin cancer,” he said. “It took more than a decade of ongoing registry data for skin cancer to be identified. It was not noted in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.”
 

Potential pregnancy concerns

When it comes to risk during reproduction, “there is a clear difference,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “We know anti-TNF therapy can be used safely in pregnant women. We know they can conceive on them and maintain them during pregnancy. They can also breastfeed on them.”

“Frankly, I’m not so ‘gung ho’ on TNF inhibitor safety in pregnancy and lactation with exception of certolizumab, which doesn’t result in high levels of antibody in the placenta or the mother’s milk,” Dr. Strand said.

The 2020 ACR Guideline for the Management of Reproductive Health in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases states that all anti-TNF therapies can be used during pregnancy and lactation, Dr. Weinblatt said. “Although I agree certolizumab has the best safety profile, all of them can be used.”

“The same is not true with the jakinibs,” he added, pointing to warnings that women of reproductive age should use contraception while on JAK inhibitors and for 4 weeks after stopping treatment.

However, Dr. Strand defended the pregnancy risk with JAK inhibitors. She cited two publications, including a 2016 study where researchers evaluated the safety of tofacitinib during pregnancy in women with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. “There was only one possible deformity, a pulmonary stenosis,” Dr. Strand said. “Essentially, the majority of patients delivered healthy babies. There was very little difference from what we know occurs in RA otherwise.”

A 2018 study assessed pregnancy outcomes with tofacitinib among people with ulcerative colitis, “again showing the majority of patients had normal deliveries.”

“There just aren’t enough data,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “Perhaps in 5 years, we will reach same conclusion with the jakinibs.”
 

Differences in cost?

“We have not benefited yet from the biosimilar costs. But in Europe, the cost of an adalimumab or etanercept biosimilar is about $5,000, versus about $50,000 to $60,000 in the U.S. for the JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “So there are major cost savings with biosimilars.”

“I can’t understand cost at all for our drugs,” he continued. “They’re not rational, and the price increases are clearly not rational. Potentially, a small molecule is going to be a lot easier to produce than a biologic, so you could argue that generic jakinibs ought to be less. But in the United States we have a distorted pricing model.”

“Until that changes, I don’t think we can predict [future costs]. One could predict that generics and biosimilars will be less than the orginators,” Dr. Weinblatt said.

“It is really criminal we don’t have biosimilars for most of our TNFs, but that is the way it is,” Dr. Strand said.
 

Summary statements

“The JAK-inhibitor class is an exciting development for rheumatology and a broad variety of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Strand said.

“In rheumatoid arthritis, they should be used early,” she added. “Based on phase 3 trials, responses are better in progressively earlier disease with less treatment-experienced patients.”

She pointed out that many patients like the convenience of the oral JAK inhibitors.

Dr. Weinblatt stated the 22 years of clinical experience with the anti-TNF class versus about 8 years with jakinibs favors the biologics. “Virtually every approved drug has been tested versus methotrexate, in early studies, long-term studies, and most importantly, in reduction and withdrawal studies, which are not available with the JAK inhibitors.”

Anti-TNFs have impressive effects on clinical disease activity, functional outcomes, and radiographic progression, Dr. Weinblatt said. They work in early and longstanding disease among patients who are disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naive and after multiple DMARD failures, he added.
 

Adding up the vote

The question was: Should JAK inhibitors be used before TNF inhibitors? The results showed 69%-31% in favor of anti-TNF agents.

“So the majority are more comfortable using TNFs,” said debate moderator Elizabeth Wahl, MD, of the department of rheumatology at VA Puget Sound Healthcare System and the University of Washington in Seattle. Regarding a switch to JAK inhibitors, she interpreted the poll numbers to mean, “we are not there yet, it takes years and years of safety data.”

Both Dr. Strand and Dr. Weinblatt disclosed numerous financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market RA drugs.

What is the next step in treatment after a person with rheumatoid arthritis fails to adequately respond to methotrexate – a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor or a biologic? That was the focus of a lively debate at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Vibeke Strand, MD, argued that JAK inhibitors offer the distinct advantage of a faster clinical response than biologics, meaning that decisions to change therapy based on nonresponse or adverse effects can be made earlier in a treatment plan.

Michael Weinblatt, MD, countered that the faster-response advantage is offset by potential adverse events associated with the JAK inhibitors, including increased risk of herpes zoster infection, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). He suggested switching patients to a biologic instead.

In addition, the debate was held just days before the ACR released a proposed guideline for the management of RA. This update to the 2015 guidance is the first to prioritize the order of RA treatments, emphasizing that clinicians should maximize methotrexate therapy before switching RA patients to a JAK inhibitor or a biologic. Release of the full guidelines is pending, and it remains unclear if the ACR provides any guidance regarding the “jakinib” versus biologic decision.

Interestingly, the debate did not hinge on any differences in efficacy. Both speakers pointed to similar efficacy between anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and JAK inhibitors, and despite working on different pathways, among the individual JAK inhibitors as well.
 

Is timing of the essence?

Knowing whether a person with RA responds to a JAK inhibitor more quickly than to a biologic is a major advantage, said Dr. Strand, of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The argument that I am making is that patients are more responsive if treated earlier in the disease process and they are less treatment-experienced.”

Dr. Strand said the advantages extend to remission as well. “When patients are aware of early improvements, their adherence is increased. Remission is more likely because it occurs earlier.”

“I will certainly grant it to Vibeke that jakinibs work much faster,” said Dr. Weinblatt, chair of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. However, he added, “my bias is that you give patients an anti-TNF therapy first, and if they are not responding by 12 weeks, you move on to another class of drugs, perhaps even the jakinibs.”

Herpes zoster risk

Dr. Strand and Dr. Weinblatt addressed potential adverse events associated with both classes of agents. For the JAK inhibitors, concerns include herpes zoster infections, increased VTE and ATE incidence, and largely unknown risks during pregnancy and lactation. For the anti-TNF agents, safety concerns include reactivation of tuberculosis, fungal infections, demyelinating syndrome, and skin cancer.

With the shortest half-life of any therapeutic class in rheumatology, adverse events with JAK inhibitors often can resolve quickly, Dr. Strand said.

The increased risk of herpes zoster is important, she added, “but we have a recombinant vaccination that works. It’s quite effective.”

Dr. Weinblatt pointed out that all the JAK inhibitors carry this increase herpes zoster risk, which is related to their mechanism of action. There is a catch with the vaccine, however, he added. The vaccine is approved for treatment of patients 50 years and older. For younger people with RA starting a JAK inhibitor, the cost is out-of-pocket.
 

Evaluating risk of emboli

The incidence of VTE is about two times higher among people with RA, compared with the general population, Dr. Strand said, with research suggesting the majority of risk resides among people with a previous event. However, she added, an emerging profile of thromboembolic events associated with JAK inhibitors is “considered a class effect by the FDA.”

One exception in the JAK inhibitor class could be tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which might carry less risk because “most of the data with tofacitinib are quite good,” Dr. Weinblatt said. One study presented at ACR 2018, for example, showed a similar VTE rate between tofacitinib and TNF inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the FDA issued a boxed warning in July 2019 about elevated risks of blood clots and death at a higher dose of tofacitinib. The concerns stem from an open-label, endpoint-driven study mandated by the FDA to explore major adverse cardiac events. “There was a clinically important and statistically significant occurrence of pulmonary embolism and VTE, and an increase in mortality in the 10-mg dose group as opposed to the anti-TNF therapies,” Dr. Weinblatt said. As a result, the FDA requested patients on the 10-mg twice-daily dose be transitioned to the 5-mg twice-daily dose.

The package labeling for the JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) feature warnings about increased risk for thromboembolic events. Furthermore, the labeling for filgotinib, a JAK inhibitor in development that received a complete response letter from the FDA in August 2020, is expected to carry the same warning.An unanswered question remains on why this class of agents potentially increases risk of thromboembolism. “We’re all uncomfortable because there is no known mechanism of JAK inhibition that should lead to this,” he added. Another unresolved issue is whether or not patients prescribed a JAK inhibitor should also be prescribed an anticoagulant.
 

Anti-TNF adverse events

Infections, primarily reactivation of tuberculosis and an increased risk for fungal disease, are concerns with the anti-TNF agents. However, the risk is not restricted to this class. “Greater risk of infection is seen with all our immune-modulating therapies,” Dr. Weinblatt said.

Rare adverse events include demyelinating syndromes, hematologic toxicity, and a worsening of heart failure in some cases.

“Despite a concern about malignancy, the only defined cancer reported over 22 years of use was skin cancer,” he said. “It took more than a decade of ongoing registry data for skin cancer to be identified. It was not noted in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.”
 

Potential pregnancy concerns

When it comes to risk during reproduction, “there is a clear difference,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “We know anti-TNF therapy can be used safely in pregnant women. We know they can conceive on them and maintain them during pregnancy. They can also breastfeed on them.”

“Frankly, I’m not so ‘gung ho’ on TNF inhibitor safety in pregnancy and lactation with exception of certolizumab, which doesn’t result in high levels of antibody in the placenta or the mother’s milk,” Dr. Strand said.

The 2020 ACR Guideline for the Management of Reproductive Health in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases states that all anti-TNF therapies can be used during pregnancy and lactation, Dr. Weinblatt said. “Although I agree certolizumab has the best safety profile, all of them can be used.”

“The same is not true with the jakinibs,” he added, pointing to warnings that women of reproductive age should use contraception while on JAK inhibitors and for 4 weeks after stopping treatment.

However, Dr. Strand defended the pregnancy risk with JAK inhibitors. She cited two publications, including a 2016 study where researchers evaluated the safety of tofacitinib during pregnancy in women with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. “There was only one possible deformity, a pulmonary stenosis,” Dr. Strand said. “Essentially, the majority of patients delivered healthy babies. There was very little difference from what we know occurs in RA otherwise.”

A 2018 study assessed pregnancy outcomes with tofacitinib among people with ulcerative colitis, “again showing the majority of patients had normal deliveries.”

“There just aren’t enough data,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “Perhaps in 5 years, we will reach same conclusion with the jakinibs.”
 

Differences in cost?

“We have not benefited yet from the biosimilar costs. But in Europe, the cost of an adalimumab or etanercept biosimilar is about $5,000, versus about $50,000 to $60,000 in the U.S. for the JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “So there are major cost savings with biosimilars.”

“I can’t understand cost at all for our drugs,” he continued. “They’re not rational, and the price increases are clearly not rational. Potentially, a small molecule is going to be a lot easier to produce than a biologic, so you could argue that generic jakinibs ought to be less. But in the United States we have a distorted pricing model.”

“Until that changes, I don’t think we can predict [future costs]. One could predict that generics and biosimilars will be less than the orginators,” Dr. Weinblatt said.

“It is really criminal we don’t have biosimilars for most of our TNFs, but that is the way it is,” Dr. Strand said.
 

Summary statements

“The JAK-inhibitor class is an exciting development for rheumatology and a broad variety of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Strand said.

“In rheumatoid arthritis, they should be used early,” she added. “Based on phase 3 trials, responses are better in progressively earlier disease with less treatment-experienced patients.”

She pointed out that many patients like the convenience of the oral JAK inhibitors.

Dr. Weinblatt stated the 22 years of clinical experience with the anti-TNF class versus about 8 years with jakinibs favors the biologics. “Virtually every approved drug has been tested versus methotrexate, in early studies, long-term studies, and most importantly, in reduction and withdrawal studies, which are not available with the JAK inhibitors.”

Anti-TNFs have impressive effects on clinical disease activity, functional outcomes, and radiographic progression, Dr. Weinblatt said. They work in early and longstanding disease among patients who are disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naive and after multiple DMARD failures, he added.
 

Adding up the vote

The question was: Should JAK inhibitors be used before TNF inhibitors? The results showed 69%-31% in favor of anti-TNF agents.

“So the majority are more comfortable using TNFs,” said debate moderator Elizabeth Wahl, MD, of the department of rheumatology at VA Puget Sound Healthcare System and the University of Washington in Seattle. Regarding a switch to JAK inhibitors, she interpreted the poll numbers to mean, “we are not there yet, it takes years and years of safety data.”

Both Dr. Strand and Dr. Weinblatt disclosed numerous financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market RA drugs.

What is the next step in treatment after a person with rheumatoid arthritis fails to adequately respond to methotrexate – a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor or a biologic? That was the focus of a lively debate at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Vibeke Strand, MD, argued that JAK inhibitors offer the distinct advantage of a faster clinical response than biologics, meaning that decisions to change therapy based on nonresponse or adverse effects can be made earlier in a treatment plan.

Michael Weinblatt, MD, countered that the faster-response advantage is offset by potential adverse events associated with the JAK inhibitors, including increased risk of herpes zoster infection, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and arterial thromboembolism (ATE). He suggested switching patients to a biologic instead.

In addition, the debate was held just days before the ACR released a proposed guideline for the management of RA. This update to the 2015 guidance is the first to prioritize the order of RA treatments, emphasizing that clinicians should maximize methotrexate therapy before switching RA patients to a JAK inhibitor or a biologic. Release of the full guidelines is pending, and it remains unclear if the ACR provides any guidance regarding the “jakinib” versus biologic decision.

Interestingly, the debate did not hinge on any differences in efficacy. Both speakers pointed to similar efficacy between anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents and JAK inhibitors, and despite working on different pathways, among the individual JAK inhibitors as well.
 

Is timing of the essence?

Knowing whether a person with RA responds to a JAK inhibitor more quickly than to a biologic is a major advantage, said Dr. Strand, of the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University. “The argument that I am making is that patients are more responsive if treated earlier in the disease process and they are less treatment-experienced.”

Dr. Strand said the advantages extend to remission as well. “When patients are aware of early improvements, their adherence is increased. Remission is more likely because it occurs earlier.”

“I will certainly grant it to Vibeke that jakinibs work much faster,” said Dr. Weinblatt, chair of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. However, he added, “my bias is that you give patients an anti-TNF therapy first, and if they are not responding by 12 weeks, you move on to another class of drugs, perhaps even the jakinibs.”

Herpes zoster risk

Dr. Strand and Dr. Weinblatt addressed potential adverse events associated with both classes of agents. For the JAK inhibitors, concerns include herpes zoster infections, increased VTE and ATE incidence, and largely unknown risks during pregnancy and lactation. For the anti-TNF agents, safety concerns include reactivation of tuberculosis, fungal infections, demyelinating syndrome, and skin cancer.

With the shortest half-life of any therapeutic class in rheumatology, adverse events with JAK inhibitors often can resolve quickly, Dr. Strand said.

The increased risk of herpes zoster is important, she added, “but we have a recombinant vaccination that works. It’s quite effective.”

Dr. Weinblatt pointed out that all the JAK inhibitors carry this increase herpes zoster risk, which is related to their mechanism of action. There is a catch with the vaccine, however, he added. The vaccine is approved for treatment of patients 50 years and older. For younger people with RA starting a JAK inhibitor, the cost is out-of-pocket.
 

Evaluating risk of emboli

The incidence of VTE is about two times higher among people with RA, compared with the general population, Dr. Strand said, with research suggesting the majority of risk resides among people with a previous event. However, she added, an emerging profile of thromboembolic events associated with JAK inhibitors is “considered a class effect by the FDA.”

One exception in the JAK inhibitor class could be tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which might carry less risk because “most of the data with tofacitinib are quite good,” Dr. Weinblatt said. One study presented at ACR 2018, for example, showed a similar VTE rate between tofacitinib and TNF inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the FDA issued a boxed warning in July 2019 about elevated risks of blood clots and death at a higher dose of tofacitinib. The concerns stem from an open-label, endpoint-driven study mandated by the FDA to explore major adverse cardiac events. “There was a clinically important and statistically significant occurrence of pulmonary embolism and VTE, and an increase in mortality in the 10-mg dose group as opposed to the anti-TNF therapies,” Dr. Weinblatt said. As a result, the FDA requested patients on the 10-mg twice-daily dose be transitioned to the 5-mg twice-daily dose.

The package labeling for the JAK inhibitors baricitinib (Olumiant) and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) feature warnings about increased risk for thromboembolic events. Furthermore, the labeling for filgotinib, a JAK inhibitor in development that received a complete response letter from the FDA in August 2020, is expected to carry the same warning.An unanswered question remains on why this class of agents potentially increases risk of thromboembolism. “We’re all uncomfortable because there is no known mechanism of JAK inhibition that should lead to this,” he added. Another unresolved issue is whether or not patients prescribed a JAK inhibitor should also be prescribed an anticoagulant.
 

Anti-TNF adverse events

Infections, primarily reactivation of tuberculosis and an increased risk for fungal disease, are concerns with the anti-TNF agents. However, the risk is not restricted to this class. “Greater risk of infection is seen with all our immune-modulating therapies,” Dr. Weinblatt said.

Rare adverse events include demyelinating syndromes, hematologic toxicity, and a worsening of heart failure in some cases.

“Despite a concern about malignancy, the only defined cancer reported over 22 years of use was skin cancer,” he said. “It took more than a decade of ongoing registry data for skin cancer to be identified. It was not noted in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.”
 

Potential pregnancy concerns

When it comes to risk during reproduction, “there is a clear difference,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “We know anti-TNF therapy can be used safely in pregnant women. We know they can conceive on them and maintain them during pregnancy. They can also breastfeed on them.”

“Frankly, I’m not so ‘gung ho’ on TNF inhibitor safety in pregnancy and lactation with exception of certolizumab, which doesn’t result in high levels of antibody in the placenta or the mother’s milk,” Dr. Strand said.

The 2020 ACR Guideline for the Management of Reproductive Health in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases states that all anti-TNF therapies can be used during pregnancy and lactation, Dr. Weinblatt said. “Although I agree certolizumab has the best safety profile, all of them can be used.”

“The same is not true with the jakinibs,” he added, pointing to warnings that women of reproductive age should use contraception while on JAK inhibitors and for 4 weeks after stopping treatment.

However, Dr. Strand defended the pregnancy risk with JAK inhibitors. She cited two publications, including a 2016 study where researchers evaluated the safety of tofacitinib during pregnancy in women with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. “There was only one possible deformity, a pulmonary stenosis,” Dr. Strand said. “Essentially, the majority of patients delivered healthy babies. There was very little difference from what we know occurs in RA otherwise.”

A 2018 study assessed pregnancy outcomes with tofacitinib among people with ulcerative colitis, “again showing the majority of patients had normal deliveries.”

“There just aren’t enough data,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “Perhaps in 5 years, we will reach same conclusion with the jakinibs.”
 

Differences in cost?

“We have not benefited yet from the biosimilar costs. But in Europe, the cost of an adalimumab or etanercept biosimilar is about $5,000, versus about $50,000 to $60,000 in the U.S. for the JAK inhibitors,” Dr. Weinblatt said. “So there are major cost savings with biosimilars.”

“I can’t understand cost at all for our drugs,” he continued. “They’re not rational, and the price increases are clearly not rational. Potentially, a small molecule is going to be a lot easier to produce than a biologic, so you could argue that generic jakinibs ought to be less. But in the United States we have a distorted pricing model.”

“Until that changes, I don’t think we can predict [future costs]. One could predict that generics and biosimilars will be less than the orginators,” Dr. Weinblatt said.

“It is really criminal we don’t have biosimilars for most of our TNFs, but that is the way it is,” Dr. Strand said.
 

Summary statements

“The JAK-inhibitor class is an exciting development for rheumatology and a broad variety of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Strand said.

“In rheumatoid arthritis, they should be used early,” she added. “Based on phase 3 trials, responses are better in progressively earlier disease with less treatment-experienced patients.”

She pointed out that many patients like the convenience of the oral JAK inhibitors.

Dr. Weinblatt stated the 22 years of clinical experience with the anti-TNF class versus about 8 years with jakinibs favors the biologics. “Virtually every approved drug has been tested versus methotrexate, in early studies, long-term studies, and most importantly, in reduction and withdrawal studies, which are not available with the JAK inhibitors.”

Anti-TNFs have impressive effects on clinical disease activity, functional outcomes, and radiographic progression, Dr. Weinblatt said. They work in early and longstanding disease among patients who are disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naive and after multiple DMARD failures, he added.
 

Adding up the vote

The question was: Should JAK inhibitors be used before TNF inhibitors? The results showed 69%-31% in favor of anti-TNF agents.

“So the majority are more comfortable using TNFs,” said debate moderator Elizabeth Wahl, MD, of the department of rheumatology at VA Puget Sound Healthcare System and the University of Washington in Seattle. Regarding a switch to JAK inhibitors, she interpreted the poll numbers to mean, “we are not there yet, it takes years and years of safety data.”

Both Dr. Strand and Dr. Weinblatt disclosed numerous financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that market RA drugs.

Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome can be categorized into four distinct symptom clusters – independent of age, sex, and some disease manifestations – that may both improve symptom relief and aid in the development of targeted therapies, investigators reported.

Analysis of data from a survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation identified four symptom clusters based on the grouping of five common characteristics: anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and dryness, Sara S. McCoy, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues reported.

“Verification of features unique to each Sjögren’s cluster might provide guidance for future cluster-targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The dearth of Food and Drug Administration–approved disease-modifying therapies for Sjögren’s syndrome can be attributed in part to the small number of patients with extraglandular disease manifestations, the heterogeneity of disease, and the failure of available therapy to improve common symptoms such as fatigue, dryness, quality-of-life decrements, anxiety and depression, she said.
 

Symptom clusters verify smaller study’s findings

Dr. McCoy and colleagues explored whether symptom clusters identified in a 2019 study from the United Kingdom would apply to a larger U.S. population.

In the U.K. study, Jessica R. Tarn, PhD, and colleagues performed a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify subgroups among 608 patients in the U.K. Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome Registry and in 396 patients in two independent validation cohorts from Norway and France.

They identified four subgroups they categorized as low symptom burden, high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue, and reported that the groups showed significant difference in serum and transcriptomic markers.

In the U.S. study, McCoy et al. sought to verify the symptom-based cluster and report on differences in key measures between the groups. They used data from a survey by the Sjögren’s Foundation of 2,961 adults with self-reported Sjögren’s syndrome. The investigators then used an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method to identify the optimal phenotypically similar clusters based on patient-reported severity of anxiety (from never to daily), depression (never to daily), pain on a visual analog scale (0 to 10), fatigue on a VAS, and dryness on a VAS. They collected data on demographics, medications, quality of life, and Sjögren’s-specific symptom frequency and systemic manifestations within each cluster, and identified cluster differences controlled for age, sex, race, and Social Security disability.

They identified four symptom-based clusters from 2,806 participants for whom complete data on the five key symptoms were available:

• Cluster 1 patients (prevalence, 30%) had high symptom burden in all categories.
• Cluster 2 patients (22%) had high anxiety and depression (22%), with some fatigue.
• Cluster 3 patients (34%) had predominant high dryness and fatigue.
• Cluster 4 patients (14%) had low symptom burden.

“We found that clusters differed in Sjögren’s-specific symptoms,” Dr. McCoy said.

For example, patients in the high-symptom-burden cluster had, as the name implies, an overall higher burden of symptoms among all major ocular, oral, and other dryness symptoms, as well as systemic organ system symptoms, whereas patients in the low-symptom-burden group consistently had the lowest levels of symptoms across the spectrum.

“We also noticed significant differences in systemic medication use. High symptom burden and high dryness and fatigue had higher use of systemic therapies targeting dryness, as might be expected,” she said.

The highest corticosteroid use was in the high-symptom-burden group, while hydroxychloroquine use was highest in the high-anxiety/depression group. Antidepressant use was also high in these two groups.

In addition, 35% of patients in the high-symptom-burden group used prescription opioid analgesics, compared with just 7% in the low-symptom-burden group.

The categories from low to high symptom burden also significantly correlated with quality-of-life measures, including Social Security Disability enrollment, emotional burden of disease, effects of disease on independence, and effects of Sjögren’s on relationships with family and friends (P < .001 for all).

Systemic manifestations of disease differed significantly among the groups for inflammatory arthritis, interstitial lung disease, and neuropathy, but there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia or lymphoma.

The investigators plan to perform symptom-based cluster analysis with validated Sjögren’s syndrome populations, and propose studies to define phenotypic features of distinct clusters “to better define subsets of this heterogeneous disease, and ultimately inform targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy concluded.
 

Opportunity to tailor practice and research

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, commented that “fatigue and pain might be also attributed to other comorbidities in these patients such as fibromyalgia,” and asked Dr. McCoy to comment on that.

“That’s exactly what we’re driving at,” Dr. McCoy replied. “Fatigue and pain frequently affect how patients experience their disease, and it would be beneficial to take this into account when we evaluate patients, and also for the studies that we’re performing, as well as future ‘-omic’ studies – transcriptomics and what-not – there’s potential here to take that type of patient we frequently see and try to tailor our clinical practice and our research to clearly what we’re seeing in practice, which is these other comorbidities.”

Dana DiRenzo, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who moderated the session, asked how the information is changing the management of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome in clinic.

Dr. McCoy said that the study was based on self-reported data that can introduce bias, and that she and colleagues plan to validate the results before applying them to clinical care.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Wisconsin. Dr. McCoy disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hernandez-Molina and Dr. DiRenzo reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: McCoy SS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1504.

Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome can be categorized into four distinct symptom clusters – independent of age, sex, and some disease manifestations – that may both improve symptom relief and aid in the development of targeted therapies, investigators reported.

Analysis of data from a survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation identified four symptom clusters based on the grouping of five common characteristics: anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and dryness, Sara S. McCoy, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues reported.

“Verification of features unique to each Sjögren’s cluster might provide guidance for future cluster-targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The dearth of Food and Drug Administration–approved disease-modifying therapies for Sjögren’s syndrome can be attributed in part to the small number of patients with extraglandular disease manifestations, the heterogeneity of disease, and the failure of available therapy to improve common symptoms such as fatigue, dryness, quality-of-life decrements, anxiety and depression, she said.
 

Symptom clusters verify smaller study’s findings

Dr. McCoy and colleagues explored whether symptom clusters identified in a 2019 study from the United Kingdom would apply to a larger U.S. population.

In the U.K. study, Jessica R. Tarn, PhD, and colleagues performed a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify subgroups among 608 patients in the U.K. Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome Registry and in 396 patients in two independent validation cohorts from Norway and France.

They identified four subgroups they categorized as low symptom burden, high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue, and reported that the groups showed significant difference in serum and transcriptomic markers.

In the U.S. study, McCoy et al. sought to verify the symptom-based cluster and report on differences in key measures between the groups. They used data from a survey by the Sjögren’s Foundation of 2,961 adults with self-reported Sjögren’s syndrome. The investigators then used an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method to identify the optimal phenotypically similar clusters based on patient-reported severity of anxiety (from never to daily), depression (never to daily), pain on a visual analog scale (0 to 10), fatigue on a VAS, and dryness on a VAS. They collected data on demographics, medications, quality of life, and Sjögren’s-specific symptom frequency and systemic manifestations within each cluster, and identified cluster differences controlled for age, sex, race, and Social Security disability.

They identified four symptom-based clusters from 2,806 participants for whom complete data on the five key symptoms were available:

• Cluster 1 patients (prevalence, 30%) had high symptom burden in all categories.
• Cluster 2 patients (22%) had high anxiety and depression (22%), with some fatigue.
• Cluster 3 patients (34%) had predominant high dryness and fatigue.
• Cluster 4 patients (14%) had low symptom burden.

“We found that clusters differed in Sjögren’s-specific symptoms,” Dr. McCoy said.

For example, patients in the high-symptom-burden cluster had, as the name implies, an overall higher burden of symptoms among all major ocular, oral, and other dryness symptoms, as well as systemic organ system symptoms, whereas patients in the low-symptom-burden group consistently had the lowest levels of symptoms across the spectrum.

“We also noticed significant differences in systemic medication use. High symptom burden and high dryness and fatigue had higher use of systemic therapies targeting dryness, as might be expected,” she said.

The highest corticosteroid use was in the high-symptom-burden group, while hydroxychloroquine use was highest in the high-anxiety/depression group. Antidepressant use was also high in these two groups.

In addition, 35% of patients in the high-symptom-burden group used prescription opioid analgesics, compared with just 7% in the low-symptom-burden group.

The categories from low to high symptom burden also significantly correlated with quality-of-life measures, including Social Security Disability enrollment, emotional burden of disease, effects of disease on independence, and effects of Sjögren’s on relationships with family and friends (P < .001 for all).

Systemic manifestations of disease differed significantly among the groups for inflammatory arthritis, interstitial lung disease, and neuropathy, but there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia or lymphoma.

The investigators plan to perform symptom-based cluster analysis with validated Sjögren’s syndrome populations, and propose studies to define phenotypic features of distinct clusters “to better define subsets of this heterogeneous disease, and ultimately inform targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy concluded.
 

Opportunity to tailor practice and research

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, commented that “fatigue and pain might be also attributed to other comorbidities in these patients such as fibromyalgia,” and asked Dr. McCoy to comment on that.

“That’s exactly what we’re driving at,” Dr. McCoy replied. “Fatigue and pain frequently affect how patients experience their disease, and it would be beneficial to take this into account when we evaluate patients, and also for the studies that we’re performing, as well as future ‘-omic’ studies – transcriptomics and what-not – there’s potential here to take that type of patient we frequently see and try to tailor our clinical practice and our research to clearly what we’re seeing in practice, which is these other comorbidities.”

Dana DiRenzo, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who moderated the session, asked how the information is changing the management of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome in clinic.

Dr. McCoy said that the study was based on self-reported data that can introduce bias, and that she and colleagues plan to validate the results before applying them to clinical care.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Wisconsin. Dr. McCoy disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hernandez-Molina and Dr. DiRenzo reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: McCoy SS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1504.

Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome can be categorized into four distinct symptom clusters – independent of age, sex, and some disease manifestations – that may both improve symptom relief and aid in the development of targeted therapies, investigators reported.

Analysis of data from a survey conducted by the Sjögren’s Foundation identified four symptom clusters based on the grouping of five common characteristics: anxiety, depression, pain, fatigue, and dryness, Sara S. McCoy, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues reported.

“Verification of features unique to each Sjögren’s cluster might provide guidance for future cluster-targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy said in an oral abstract presentation during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The dearth of Food and Drug Administration–approved disease-modifying therapies for Sjögren’s syndrome can be attributed in part to the small number of patients with extraglandular disease manifestations, the heterogeneity of disease, and the failure of available therapy to improve common symptoms such as fatigue, dryness, quality-of-life decrements, anxiety and depression, she said.
 

Symptom clusters verify smaller study’s findings

Dr. McCoy and colleagues explored whether symptom clusters identified in a 2019 study from the United Kingdom would apply to a larger U.S. population.

In the U.K. study, Jessica R. Tarn, PhD, and colleagues performed a hierarchical cluster analysis to identify subgroups among 608 patients in the U.K. Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome Registry and in 396 patients in two independent validation cohorts from Norway and France.

They identified four subgroups they categorized as low symptom burden, high symptom burden, dryness dominant with fatigue, and pain dominant with fatigue, and reported that the groups showed significant difference in serum and transcriptomic markers.

In the U.S. study, McCoy et al. sought to verify the symptom-based cluster and report on differences in key measures between the groups. They used data from a survey by the Sjögren’s Foundation of 2,961 adults with self-reported Sjögren’s syndrome. The investigators then used an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method to identify the optimal phenotypically similar clusters based on patient-reported severity of anxiety (from never to daily), depression (never to daily), pain on a visual analog scale (0 to 10), fatigue on a VAS, and dryness on a VAS. They collected data on demographics, medications, quality of life, and Sjögren’s-specific symptom frequency and systemic manifestations within each cluster, and identified cluster differences controlled for age, sex, race, and Social Security disability.

They identified four symptom-based clusters from 2,806 participants for whom complete data on the five key symptoms were available:

• Cluster 1 patients (prevalence, 30%) had high symptom burden in all categories.
• Cluster 2 patients (22%) had high anxiety and depression (22%), with some fatigue.
• Cluster 3 patients (34%) had predominant high dryness and fatigue.
• Cluster 4 patients (14%) had low symptom burden.

“We found that clusters differed in Sjögren’s-specific symptoms,” Dr. McCoy said.

For example, patients in the high-symptom-burden cluster had, as the name implies, an overall higher burden of symptoms among all major ocular, oral, and other dryness symptoms, as well as systemic organ system symptoms, whereas patients in the low-symptom-burden group consistently had the lowest levels of symptoms across the spectrum.

“We also noticed significant differences in systemic medication use. High symptom burden and high dryness and fatigue had higher use of systemic therapies targeting dryness, as might be expected,” she said.

The highest corticosteroid use was in the high-symptom-burden group, while hydroxychloroquine use was highest in the high-anxiety/depression group. Antidepressant use was also high in these two groups.

In addition, 35% of patients in the high-symptom-burden group used prescription opioid analgesics, compared with just 7% in the low-symptom-burden group.

The categories from low to high symptom burden also significantly correlated with quality-of-life measures, including Social Security Disability enrollment, emotional burden of disease, effects of disease on independence, and effects of Sjögren’s on relationships with family and friends (P < .001 for all).

Systemic manifestations of disease differed significantly among the groups for inflammatory arthritis, interstitial lung disease, and neuropathy, but there were no significant differences in the incidence of leukopenia or lymphoma.

The investigators plan to perform symptom-based cluster analysis with validated Sjögren’s syndrome populations, and propose studies to define phenotypic features of distinct clusters “to better define subsets of this heterogeneous disease, and ultimately inform targeted therapy,” Dr. McCoy concluded.
 

Opportunity to tailor practice and research

During the question-and-answer period following the presentation, Gabriela Hernandez-Molina, MD, of the Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, commented that “fatigue and pain might be also attributed to other comorbidities in these patients such as fibromyalgia,” and asked Dr. McCoy to comment on that.

“That’s exactly what we’re driving at,” Dr. McCoy replied. “Fatigue and pain frequently affect how patients experience their disease, and it would be beneficial to take this into account when we evaluate patients, and also for the studies that we’re performing, as well as future ‘-omic’ studies – transcriptomics and what-not – there’s potential here to take that type of patient we frequently see and try to tailor our clinical practice and our research to clearly what we’re seeing in practice, which is these other comorbidities.”

Dana DiRenzo, MD, from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who moderated the session, asked how the information is changing the management of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome in clinic.

Dr. McCoy said that the study was based on self-reported data that can introduce bias, and that she and colleagues plan to validate the results before applying them to clinical care.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the University of Wisconsin. Dr. McCoy disclosed consulting fees from Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Hernandez-Molina and Dr. DiRenzo reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: McCoy SS et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 1504.

No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) emerged between methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment in a comparison of adults 65 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis. However, researchers reported some elevation in risk for stroke in the methotrexate group and for myocardial infarction and heart failure in the HCQ group.

The primary outcome, a composite of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, had an incidence of 23.39 per 1,000 person-years in the methotrexate group versus 24.33 in the HCQ group in this observational study of nearly 60,000 people.

“These results suggest an importance of looking at different individual events of cardiovascular disease rather than the whole ‘CV’ disease only,” Seoyoung Kim, MD, said in an interview. “The other important thing is that the mortality was not significantly different between the two groups.”

For example, the researchers reported 256 cardiovascular-related deaths in the methotrexate group and 263 such deaths in the HCQ cohort.
 

Addressing a recognized risk

“It is well known that patients with rheumatoid arthritis have excessive morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Kim, of the division of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Among prior studies in this area, the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among people taking methotrexate versus placebo. However, the study of 4,786 people was not specific to RA, Dr. Kim said. The lack of efficacy on this endpoint prompted researchers to stop CIRT early.

“So what does the conclusion of the CIRT trial mean for rheumatoid arthritis patients?” Dr. Kim asked.

To find out, she and colleagues compared risk of MACE among participants newly starting either methotrexate or HCQ. The study included 59,329 people aged 65 and older who were identified through Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2016. Mean age was 74 years, and 80% were women.

The investigators used propensity score matching to control for multiple covariates for demographics, other medications, and comorbidities. Use of other medications was similar between groups, including glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and statins. Baseline cardiovascular morbidities likewise were well balanced, Dr. Kim said.

The hazard ratio for the primary MACE outcome was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.08).

Secondary outcomes

MI was less common in the methotrexate group, for example, with an incidence of 8.49 per 1,000 person-years versus 10.68 per 1,000 person-years in the HCQ cohort. This finding was statically significant, Dr. Kim said, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 favoring methotrexate.

Heart failure also occurred less often in the methotrexate cohort, with an incidence rate of 8.57 per 1,000 person-years versus a rate of 14.24 in the HCQ group. The hazard ratio again favored methotrexate at 0.60.

In contrast, strokes were more common with methotrexate than with (incidence of 7.94 vs. 6.01 per 1,000 person-years).

Another secondary outcome, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between groups. There were 821 deaths in the methotrexate group (28.65 per 1,000 person-years) and 796 deaths in the HCQ group (31.33 per 1,000 person-years).
 

Studying causality next?

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), asked Dr. Kim why she found significant differences in some secondary outcomes but not the primary composite endpoint.

“When we think of cardiovascular diseases, we tend to think of them all developing through the same mechanism. But perhaps the exact mechanism might not be identical,” Dr. Kim replied. The findings do not suggest causality because the study was observational, she added, “but maybe this will lead to a randomized, controlled trial.”

When asked for comment, Dr. Buch said that the study was “interesting” and “suggestive of differences in type of MACE between the two drugs evaluated,” but that there should be caution in interpreting the findings because of the lack of detailed information on RA disease and activity in claims databases, in addition to other factors, even though the investigators made adjustments for known differences through propensity score matching.

The division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital supported the study. Dr. Kim has received support for Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated research from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several other coauthors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for RA. Dr. Buch had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: He M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 1993.

No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) emerged between methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment in a comparison of adults 65 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis. However, researchers reported some elevation in risk for stroke in the methotrexate group and for myocardial infarction and heart failure in the HCQ group.

The primary outcome, a composite of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, had an incidence of 23.39 per 1,000 person-years in the methotrexate group versus 24.33 in the HCQ group in this observational study of nearly 60,000 people.

“These results suggest an importance of looking at different individual events of cardiovascular disease rather than the whole ‘CV’ disease only,” Seoyoung Kim, MD, said in an interview. “The other important thing is that the mortality was not significantly different between the two groups.”

For example, the researchers reported 256 cardiovascular-related deaths in the methotrexate group and 263 such deaths in the HCQ cohort.
 

Addressing a recognized risk

“It is well known that patients with rheumatoid arthritis have excessive morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Kim, of the division of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Among prior studies in this area, the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among people taking methotrexate versus placebo. However, the study of 4,786 people was not specific to RA, Dr. Kim said. The lack of efficacy on this endpoint prompted researchers to stop CIRT early.

“So what does the conclusion of the CIRT trial mean for rheumatoid arthritis patients?” Dr. Kim asked.

To find out, she and colleagues compared risk of MACE among participants newly starting either methotrexate or HCQ. The study included 59,329 people aged 65 and older who were identified through Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2016. Mean age was 74 years, and 80% were women.

The investigators used propensity score matching to control for multiple covariates for demographics, other medications, and comorbidities. Use of other medications was similar between groups, including glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and statins. Baseline cardiovascular morbidities likewise were well balanced, Dr. Kim said.

The hazard ratio for the primary MACE outcome was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.08).

Secondary outcomes

MI was less common in the methotrexate group, for example, with an incidence of 8.49 per 1,000 person-years versus 10.68 per 1,000 person-years in the HCQ cohort. This finding was statically significant, Dr. Kim said, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 favoring methotrexate.

Heart failure also occurred less often in the methotrexate cohort, with an incidence rate of 8.57 per 1,000 person-years versus a rate of 14.24 in the HCQ group. The hazard ratio again favored methotrexate at 0.60.

In contrast, strokes were more common with methotrexate than with (incidence of 7.94 vs. 6.01 per 1,000 person-years).

Another secondary outcome, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between groups. There were 821 deaths in the methotrexate group (28.65 per 1,000 person-years) and 796 deaths in the HCQ group (31.33 per 1,000 person-years).
 

Studying causality next?

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), asked Dr. Kim why she found significant differences in some secondary outcomes but not the primary composite endpoint.

“When we think of cardiovascular diseases, we tend to think of them all developing through the same mechanism. But perhaps the exact mechanism might not be identical,” Dr. Kim replied. The findings do not suggest causality because the study was observational, she added, “but maybe this will lead to a randomized, controlled trial.”

When asked for comment, Dr. Buch said that the study was “interesting” and “suggestive of differences in type of MACE between the two drugs evaluated,” but that there should be caution in interpreting the findings because of the lack of detailed information on RA disease and activity in claims databases, in addition to other factors, even though the investigators made adjustments for known differences through propensity score matching.

The division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital supported the study. Dr. Kim has received support for Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated research from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several other coauthors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for RA. Dr. Buch had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: He M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 1993.

No significant differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) emerged between methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) treatment in a comparison of adults 65 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis. However, researchers reported some elevation in risk for stroke in the methotrexate group and for myocardial infarction and heart failure in the HCQ group.

The primary outcome, a composite of MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death, had an incidence of 23.39 per 1,000 person-years in the methotrexate group versus 24.33 in the HCQ group in this observational study of nearly 60,000 people.

“These results suggest an importance of looking at different individual events of cardiovascular disease rather than the whole ‘CV’ disease only,” Seoyoung Kim, MD, said in an interview. “The other important thing is that the mortality was not significantly different between the two groups.”

For example, the researchers reported 256 cardiovascular-related deaths in the methotrexate group and 263 such deaths in the HCQ cohort.
 

Addressing a recognized risk

“It is well known that patients with rheumatoid arthritis have excessive morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Kim, of the division of rheumatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Among prior studies in this area, the Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial (CIRT) found no significant reduction in cardiovascular events among people taking methotrexate versus placebo. However, the study of 4,786 people was not specific to RA, Dr. Kim said. The lack of efficacy on this endpoint prompted researchers to stop CIRT early.

“So what does the conclusion of the CIRT trial mean for rheumatoid arthritis patients?” Dr. Kim asked.

To find out, she and colleagues compared risk of MACE among participants newly starting either methotrexate or HCQ. The study included 59,329 people aged 65 and older who were identified through Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2016. Mean age was 74 years, and 80% were women.

The investigators used propensity score matching to control for multiple covariates for demographics, other medications, and comorbidities. Use of other medications was similar between groups, including glucocorticoids, NSAIDs, and statins. Baseline cardiovascular morbidities likewise were well balanced, Dr. Kim said.

The hazard ratio for the primary MACE outcome was 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.08).

Secondary outcomes

MI was less common in the methotrexate group, for example, with an incidence of 8.49 per 1,000 person-years versus 10.68 per 1,000 person-years in the HCQ cohort. This finding was statically significant, Dr. Kim said, with a hazard ratio of 0.80 favoring methotrexate.

Heart failure also occurred less often in the methotrexate cohort, with an incidence rate of 8.57 per 1,000 person-years versus a rate of 14.24 in the HCQ group. The hazard ratio again favored methotrexate at 0.60.

In contrast, strokes were more common with methotrexate than with (incidence of 7.94 vs. 6.01 per 1,000 person-years).

Another secondary outcome, all-cause mortality, was not significantly different between groups. There were 821 deaths in the methotrexate group (28.65 per 1,000 person-years) and 796 deaths in the HCQ group (31.33 per 1,000 person-years).
 

Studying causality next?

Session moderator Maya Buch, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), asked Dr. Kim why she found significant differences in some secondary outcomes but not the primary composite endpoint.

“When we think of cardiovascular diseases, we tend to think of them all developing through the same mechanism. But perhaps the exact mechanism might not be identical,” Dr. Kim replied. The findings do not suggest causality because the study was observational, she added, “but maybe this will lead to a randomized, controlled trial.”

When asked for comment, Dr. Buch said that the study was “interesting” and “suggestive of differences in type of MACE between the two drugs evaluated,” but that there should be caution in interpreting the findings because of the lack of detailed information on RA disease and activity in claims databases, in addition to other factors, even though the investigators made adjustments for known differences through propensity score matching.

The division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital supported the study. Dr. Kim has received support for Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated research from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Several other coauthors reported having financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies that make drugs for RA. Dr. Buch had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: He M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10): Abstract 1993.

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) experienced rapid clinical response to the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz) in a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Tofacitinib was significantly more effective than was placebo at primary and secondary endpoints. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo, but there were no new safety risks.

Results were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Atul Deodhar, MD, medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health and Science University, Portland.

At week 16, 56.4% of patients who received tofacitinib met ASAS20 criteria (Assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a validated measure of 20% improvement), compared with 29.4% in the placebo group (P < .0001). The percentage of ASAS40 responders at week 16 was also significantly greater with tofacitinib (40.6%) than placebo (12.5%) (P < .0001).

The trial, sponsored by Pfizer, enrolled 269 adults with active AS who had a poor response to or were intolerant of at least two NSAIDs. Most in the active treatment and placebo groups were men (about 85%); the average age was 41 years. Most (77%) had no prior exposure to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

“Symptom duration was about 13 years,” Dr. Deodhar said.

In the 4-month double-blind phase, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day or placebo. After 16 weeks, all patients received open-label tofacitinib until week 48.

Safety was a secondary endpoint, Dr. Deodhar said.

In the tofacitinib group, 72 patients (54.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs), compared with 70 patients in the placebo group (51.5%). Two patients in the treatment group experienced severe AEs; none in the placebo group did so. In the treatment group, three patients left the trial because of AEs; in the placebo group, one patient did so.

The most common AEs were upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis.

“There were no unexpected side effects in this study,” Dr. Deodhar said. He noted that the risks were similar to known risks for those taking the drug for rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.

With tofacitinib there were no deaths, thromboembolic events, malignancies, major cardiac events, or gastrointestinal perforation. By week 48, three patients in the tofacitinib group had nonserious herpes zoster versus one in the placebo group.

“There’s a lot of hand-wringing” about why a JAK inhibitor would be effective for AS, inasmuch as it does not target the tumor necrosis factor [TNF] pathway or interleukin-17,” Dr. Deodhar said.

“Somehow, JAK inhibitor drugs are downstream, affecting several cytokines that we know are important in the pathogenesis and the phenotypic expression of the disease,” he said.

Sonali Khandelwal, MD, of Rush University, Chicago, who did not take part in the research, said in an interview that tofacitinib holds promise as a much-needed option.

“JAK inhibitors have been used with success in RA, and it is reassuring to see these phase 3 data for AS,” especially for those patients whose disease was not well controlled with other approved agents, she said.

She added that oral administration is a plus for patients.

“AS, like all other chronic rheumatologic conditions, has no cure,” Dr. Khandelwal noted. “The advent of biologics has changed the course of these conditions, but not one drug works for everyone.”

She said it would be helpful if future trials were to compare the safety and efficacy of tofacitinib with those of biologics that have already been approved for AS, such as anti-TNF agents and IL-17 antagonists.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Deodhar reported relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Khandelwal disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A draft guideline for the management of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis reflects changes in therapy away from reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids and toward earlier introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

The guideline, described in an oral session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, contains weighted recommendations for the treatment of JIA, including therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, tempromandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA (sJIA). The recommendations were the result of expert consensus and literature review using GRADE methodology, with input from clinicians, as well as patients and parents.

“Although evidence remains very low and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of parents and patients in the decision-making process strengthens their validity,” said project principal investigator Karen Onel, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

She added that “it’s important to remember that these guidelines are meant to be guidelines; clinical care remains in the hands of the provider and the patient, and we endorse the importance of shared decision-making in coming to these agreements.”

Dr. Onel outlined key recommendations for patients for whom a diagnosis of JIA has already been made and who have no contraindications to recommended therapies. The strength of the recommendations (strong or conditional) and evidence levels (high, moderate, low, very low) were also reported.
 

Oligoarthritis with fewer than five involved joints

For these patients, intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGC) are recommended as a part of initial therapy (strong, very low evidence).

Triamcinolone acetonide is the preferred agent in this situation (strong, low evidence).

The guideline also has a conditional recommendation (very low evidence) for a trial of consistent NSAIDS as part of initial therapy and a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy (very low evidence).

Patients with no or incomplete responses or intolerance to NSAIDS and/or IAGC may be tried on a nonbiologic DMARD (strong, very low evidence), with methotrexate as the preferred agent (conditional, low evidence).

If the patient has no response or an inadequate response to at least one nonbiologic DMARD, biologic DMARDs are recommended (strong, very low evidence), with no preferred agent.

The guideline also conditionally recommends (all with very low evidence) using risk factors and validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions, as well as imaging guidance of joints that are difficult to access or to localize the distribution of inflammation.
 

TMJ arthritis

For patients with temporomandibular joint arthritis, isolated or not, IAGCs are conditionally recommended as part of initial therapy (very low evidence) with no preferred agents. The guideline also conditionally recommends in favor of a trial of consistent NSAIDs, and against oral glucocorticoids in initial therapy (evidence for both very low).

Recommendations for patients with TMJ with no or an incomplete response to the initial therapy are the same as for patients with oligoarthritis, with no preferred agent.
 

sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome

For patients with sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), NSAIDS are conditionally recommended as initial monotherapy (very low evidence). Biologic DMARDS (including interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are also recommended, conditionally, as initial monotherapy, with no preferred agent.

If the patient has an inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDS and at least one nonbiologic DMARD, a single biologic DMARD is recommended over a combination of nonbiologic therapies (strong, very low evidence).

“However, there have been reports of emergent, highly severe lung disease associated with the use of biologics in children with systemic JIA, especially in those who are young, with chronic macrophage activation syndrome, and those with trisomy 21. More information is needed to clarify the safety of these agents,” Dr. Onel said.

There is a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy, and strong recommendation against nonbiologic DMARDs as initial monotherapy (both very low evidence).

sJIA with MAS

“Macrophage activation syndrome is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for children with sJIA. Cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic syndrome can be seen with any rheumatic disease, but are most commonly seen with sJIA,” she said.

The features of MAS include fever, high ferritin levels, cytopenias, elevated liver-function test results, and high triglyceride levels.

For these patients, glucocorticoids are recommended as initial monotherapy (conditional, very low evidence). Biologic DMARDs (IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are recommended over calcineurin inhibitors for achieving inactive disease and resolution of MAS (conditional, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

For patients with residual arthritis and an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors, biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs are recommended over chronic glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

After an MAS inactive disease state has been attained, the guideline recommends tapering and discontinuing glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence) and the same for biologic DMARDs (conditional, very low evidence).
 

All children with JIA

In addition to the recommendations on specific clinical situations, the guideline includes recommendations for all children with JIA on medication monitoring, laboratory testing, and infection screening, as well as immunization and nonpharmacologic management.

A rheumatologist who was not involved in development of the guidelines commented on the importance of optimal management of JIA.

“Children are not immune from devastating rheumatic diseases, and the largest group is juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In my clinic, I have patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who have adult persistence of their arthritis from JIA who have permanent joint damage and even ongoing hard-to-control disease, and it has to do with the lack of therapies in the 1990s,” said Donald Thomas, MD, from Arthritis and Pain Associates of Prince George’s County (Md.).

“Today when we get a young adult transitioned from the pediatric clinic they’re usually in remission or have low disease activity because these treatments have paralleled those of our adult RA patients. Yet they do [provide clinicians with] unique challenges, with stunting of growth, macrophage activiation syndrome, and having to work with family members of the patient,” he said at a press briefing he moderated following the presentation of RA and JIA guidelines.

Eyal Muscal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview that the guidelines clarify recommendations about earlier use of targeted therapies, primarily biologics.

“This will not change care, but hopefully remind all to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier utilization of often expensive biologic agents is delayed by administrative and insurance hurdles in the U.S. and access to these medications globally. I hope the guidelines will enhance advocacy on a state, national, and global stage,” he said when asked for comment.

The guideline development process is supported by ACR. Dr. Onel, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Muscal reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Onel K et al. ACR 2020, Presented November 8.

A draft guideline for the management of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis reflects changes in therapy away from reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids and toward earlier introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

The guideline, described in an oral session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, contains weighted recommendations for the treatment of JIA, including therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, tempromandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA (sJIA). The recommendations were the result of expert consensus and literature review using GRADE methodology, with input from clinicians, as well as patients and parents.

“Although evidence remains very low and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of parents and patients in the decision-making process strengthens their validity,” said project principal investigator Karen Onel, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

She added that “it’s important to remember that these guidelines are meant to be guidelines; clinical care remains in the hands of the provider and the patient, and we endorse the importance of shared decision-making in coming to these agreements.”

Dr. Onel outlined key recommendations for patients for whom a diagnosis of JIA has already been made and who have no contraindications to recommended therapies. The strength of the recommendations (strong or conditional) and evidence levels (high, moderate, low, very low) were also reported.
 

Oligoarthritis with fewer than five involved joints

For these patients, intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGC) are recommended as a part of initial therapy (strong, very low evidence).

Triamcinolone acetonide is the preferred agent in this situation (strong, low evidence).

The guideline also has a conditional recommendation (very low evidence) for a trial of consistent NSAIDS as part of initial therapy and a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy (very low evidence).

Patients with no or incomplete responses or intolerance to NSAIDS and/or IAGC may be tried on a nonbiologic DMARD (strong, very low evidence), with methotrexate as the preferred agent (conditional, low evidence).

If the patient has no response or an inadequate response to at least one nonbiologic DMARD, biologic DMARDs are recommended (strong, very low evidence), with no preferred agent.

The guideline also conditionally recommends (all with very low evidence) using risk factors and validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions, as well as imaging guidance of joints that are difficult to access or to localize the distribution of inflammation.
 

TMJ arthritis

For patients with temporomandibular joint arthritis, isolated or not, IAGCs are conditionally recommended as part of initial therapy (very low evidence) with no preferred agents. The guideline also conditionally recommends in favor of a trial of consistent NSAIDs, and against oral glucocorticoids in initial therapy (evidence for both very low).

Recommendations for patients with TMJ with no or an incomplete response to the initial therapy are the same as for patients with oligoarthritis, with no preferred agent.
 

sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome

For patients with sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), NSAIDS are conditionally recommended as initial monotherapy (very low evidence). Biologic DMARDS (including interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are also recommended, conditionally, as initial monotherapy, with no preferred agent.

If the patient has an inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDS and at least one nonbiologic DMARD, a single biologic DMARD is recommended over a combination of nonbiologic therapies (strong, very low evidence).

“However, there have been reports of emergent, highly severe lung disease associated with the use of biologics in children with systemic JIA, especially in those who are young, with chronic macrophage activation syndrome, and those with trisomy 21. More information is needed to clarify the safety of these agents,” Dr. Onel said.

There is a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy, and strong recommendation against nonbiologic DMARDs as initial monotherapy (both very low evidence).

sJIA with MAS

“Macrophage activation syndrome is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for children with sJIA. Cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic syndrome can be seen with any rheumatic disease, but are most commonly seen with sJIA,” she said.

The features of MAS include fever, high ferritin levels, cytopenias, elevated liver-function test results, and high triglyceride levels.

For these patients, glucocorticoids are recommended as initial monotherapy (conditional, very low evidence). Biologic DMARDs (IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are recommended over calcineurin inhibitors for achieving inactive disease and resolution of MAS (conditional, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

For patients with residual arthritis and an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors, biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs are recommended over chronic glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

After an MAS inactive disease state has been attained, the guideline recommends tapering and discontinuing glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence) and the same for biologic DMARDs (conditional, very low evidence).
 

All children with JIA

In addition to the recommendations on specific clinical situations, the guideline includes recommendations for all children with JIA on medication monitoring, laboratory testing, and infection screening, as well as immunization and nonpharmacologic management.

A rheumatologist who was not involved in development of the guidelines commented on the importance of optimal management of JIA.

“Children are not immune from devastating rheumatic diseases, and the largest group is juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In my clinic, I have patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who have adult persistence of their arthritis from JIA who have permanent joint damage and even ongoing hard-to-control disease, and it has to do with the lack of therapies in the 1990s,” said Donald Thomas, MD, from Arthritis and Pain Associates of Prince George’s County (Md.).

“Today when we get a young adult transitioned from the pediatric clinic they’re usually in remission or have low disease activity because these treatments have paralleled those of our adult RA patients. Yet they do [provide clinicians with] unique challenges, with stunting of growth, macrophage activiation syndrome, and having to work with family members of the patient,” he said at a press briefing he moderated following the presentation of RA and JIA guidelines.

Eyal Muscal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview that the guidelines clarify recommendations about earlier use of targeted therapies, primarily biologics.

“This will not change care, but hopefully remind all to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier utilization of often expensive biologic agents is delayed by administrative and insurance hurdles in the U.S. and access to these medications globally. I hope the guidelines will enhance advocacy on a state, national, and global stage,” he said when asked for comment.

The guideline development process is supported by ACR. Dr. Onel, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Muscal reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Onel K et al. ACR 2020, Presented November 8.

A draft guideline for the management of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis reflects changes in therapy away from reliance on NSAIDs and glucocorticoids and toward earlier introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

The guideline, described in an oral session during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, contains weighted recommendations for the treatment of JIA, including therapeutic approaches for oligoarthritis, tempromandibular joint (TMJ) arthritis, and systemic JIA (sJIA). The recommendations were the result of expert consensus and literature review using GRADE methodology, with input from clinicians, as well as patients and parents.

“Although evidence remains very low and many recommendations are conditional, the inclusion of parents and patients in the decision-making process strengthens their validity,” said project principal investigator Karen Onel, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medicine, both in New York.

She added that “it’s important to remember that these guidelines are meant to be guidelines; clinical care remains in the hands of the provider and the patient, and we endorse the importance of shared decision-making in coming to these agreements.”

Dr. Onel outlined key recommendations for patients for whom a diagnosis of JIA has already been made and who have no contraindications to recommended therapies. The strength of the recommendations (strong or conditional) and evidence levels (high, moderate, low, very low) were also reported.
 

Oligoarthritis with fewer than five involved joints

For these patients, intra-articular glucocorticoids (IAGC) are recommended as a part of initial therapy (strong, very low evidence).

Triamcinolone acetonide is the preferred agent in this situation (strong, low evidence).

The guideline also has a conditional recommendation (very low evidence) for a trial of consistent NSAIDS as part of initial therapy and a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids for initial therapy (very low evidence).

Patients with no or incomplete responses or intolerance to NSAIDS and/or IAGC may be tried on a nonbiologic DMARD (strong, very low evidence), with methotrexate as the preferred agent (conditional, low evidence).

If the patient has no response or an inadequate response to at least one nonbiologic DMARD, biologic DMARDs are recommended (strong, very low evidence), with no preferred agent.

The guideline also conditionally recommends (all with very low evidence) using risk factors and validated disease activity measures to guide treatment decisions, as well as imaging guidance of joints that are difficult to access or to localize the distribution of inflammation.
 

TMJ arthritis

For patients with temporomandibular joint arthritis, isolated or not, IAGCs are conditionally recommended as part of initial therapy (very low evidence) with no preferred agents. The guideline also conditionally recommends in favor of a trial of consistent NSAIDs, and against oral glucocorticoids in initial therapy (evidence for both very low).

Recommendations for patients with TMJ with no or an incomplete response to the initial therapy are the same as for patients with oligoarthritis, with no preferred agent.
 

sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome

For patients with sJIA without macrophage activation syndrome (MAS), NSAIDS are conditionally recommended as initial monotherapy (very low evidence). Biologic DMARDS (including interleukin-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are also recommended, conditionally, as initial monotherapy, with no preferred agent.

If the patient has an inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDS and at least one nonbiologic DMARD, a single biologic DMARD is recommended over a combination of nonbiologic therapies (strong, very low evidence).

“However, there have been reports of emergent, highly severe lung disease associated with the use of biologics in children with systemic JIA, especially in those who are young, with chronic macrophage activation syndrome, and those with trisomy 21. More information is needed to clarify the safety of these agents,” Dr. Onel said.

There is a conditional recommendation against oral glucocorticoids as initial monotherapy, and strong recommendation against nonbiologic DMARDs as initial monotherapy (both very low evidence).

sJIA with MAS

“Macrophage activation syndrome is a major cause of morbidity and mortality for children with sJIA. Cytokine storm and secondary hemophagocytic syndrome can be seen with any rheumatic disease, but are most commonly seen with sJIA,” she said.

The features of MAS include fever, high ferritin levels, cytopenias, elevated liver-function test results, and high triglyceride levels.

For these patients, glucocorticoids are recommended as initial monotherapy (conditional, very low evidence). Biologic DMARDs (IL-1 and IL-6 inhibitors) are recommended over calcineurin inhibitors for achieving inactive disease and resolution of MAS (conditional, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

For patients with residual arthritis and an incomplete response to IL-1 or IL-6 inhibitors, biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs are recommended over chronic glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence). There is no preferred agent.

After an MAS inactive disease state has been attained, the guideline recommends tapering and discontinuing glucocorticoids (strong, very low evidence) and the same for biologic DMARDs (conditional, very low evidence).
 

All children with JIA

In addition to the recommendations on specific clinical situations, the guideline includes recommendations for all children with JIA on medication monitoring, laboratory testing, and infection screening, as well as immunization and nonpharmacologic management.

A rheumatologist who was not involved in development of the guidelines commented on the importance of optimal management of JIA.

“Children are not immune from devastating rheumatic diseases, and the largest group is juvenile idiopathic arthritis. In my clinic, I have patients in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who have adult persistence of their arthritis from JIA who have permanent joint damage and even ongoing hard-to-control disease, and it has to do with the lack of therapies in the 1990s,” said Donald Thomas, MD, from Arthritis and Pain Associates of Prince George’s County (Md.).

“Today when we get a young adult transitioned from the pediatric clinic they’re usually in remission or have low disease activity because these treatments have paralleled those of our adult RA patients. Yet they do [provide clinicians with] unique challenges, with stunting of growth, macrophage activiation syndrome, and having to work with family members of the patient,” he said at a press briefing he moderated following the presentation of RA and JIA guidelines.

Eyal Muscal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and rheumatology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, said in an interview that the guidelines clarify recommendations about earlier use of targeted therapies, primarily biologics.

“This will not change care, but hopefully remind all to adopt such strategies. Yet earlier utilization of often expensive biologic agents is delayed by administrative and insurance hurdles in the U.S. and access to these medications globally. I hope the guidelines will enhance advocacy on a state, national, and global stage,” he said when asked for comment.

The guideline development process is supported by ACR. Dr. Onel, Dr. Thomas, and Dr. Muscal reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Onel K et al. ACR 2020, Presented November 8.

Febuxostat (Uloric) emerged as noninferior to allopurinol regarding risk of cardiovascular death among people 60 years and older with gout and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, results of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) suggest.

This primary outcome of the FAST trial stands in contrast to results of the CARES trial in 2018. The CARES researchers previously reported a 4.3% increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with febuxostat, compared with a 3.2% rate with allopurinol, a statistically significant 34% increase in the relative risk.

“In contrast to previous studies, there was no evidence of increased mortality with febuxostat, and we believe the regulators should review febuxostat licensing restrictions,” senior author Thomas MacDonald, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said during a late-breaking abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The results of the FAST trial were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Both febuxostat and allopurinol treat gout by lowering urate levels. Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat led to two post-licensing studies: the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Participants with Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) study, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and FAST, requested by the European Medicines Agency. In February 2019, the FDA added a warning about elevated cardiovascular death and death risk associated with febuxostat.

“When CARES was published, it was somewhat of a threat to our study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “After hearing from our data-monitoring committee, we were told we could continue the trial.”
 

Some switched from allopurinol to febuxostat

So Dr. MacDonald, lead author Isla Mackenzie, MBChB, and their colleagues enrolled 6,128 people with gout in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark between December 2011 and January 2018. They followed patients for a median of 4 years. Participants had a mean age of 71 years, 85% were men, and 33% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The investigators excluded anyone with a stroke or myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months.

All participants were being treated with allopurinol. The investigators titrated those not at target up to an ideal dose that achieved a serum urate concentration of less than 0.357 mmol/L (< 6 mg/dL). Next, they randomly assigned 3,065 people to continue allopurinol and another 3,063 to switch to 80-120 mg of febuxostat.

The primary outcome of the multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label FAST trial was a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal MI or biomarker positive for acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.
 

Key findings

“There was definitely a noninferior primary outcome,” Dr. MacDonald said. In the on-treatment analysis, 172 patients in the febuxostat group reached the composite endpoint versus 241 patients in the allopurinol group. There were 1.72 events per 100 patient-years in the febuxostat group versus 2.05 events in the allopurinol group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.03). An intent-to-treat analysis also found that febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol on this measure.

Urate levels were approximately 80 micromoles lower in the febuxostat group versus the allopurinol group each year of the study, Dr. MacDonald said.

At least one gout flare was experienced by 1,017 patients in the febuxostat group and by 1,044 participants in the allopurinol group. “However, there was no placebo group, so we don’t know the effectiveness of either of these agents at preventing flares” based on this research, he said.

Both the on-treatment and intention-to-treat (ITT) secondary analyses demonstrated the noninferiority of febuxostat, compared with allopurinol, for all-cause death, each individual component of the composite primary outcome – cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for new, unstable, or worsening angina.

In contrast, the ITT analysis revealed a “nominally significant increase” in hospitalization for arrhythmia with no evidence of ischemia in the febuxostat group. The 0.583 events per 100 patient-years in this group versus 0.385 events in the allopurinol cohort generated an adjusted HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.05-2.17).

In terms of all-cause mortality, 222 participants (7.2%) in the febuxostat group died, compared with 263 people (8.6%) in the allopurinol group.

Adverse events and withdrawals

A total 1,720 participants (57.3%) in the febuxostat group experienced at least one serious adverse event, as did 1,812 participants (59.4%) in the allopurinol group. Less than 1% of serious adverse events in each group were considered treatment-related.

Dr. MacDonald said that 6.2% of the febuxostat patients and 5.5% of the allopurinol group withdrew from the study. “We had pretty good follow-up [94%],” Dr. MacDonald said. “I don’t want to criticize CARES, but 47% did drop out of that study, and they could not follow them anymore.”

Limitations of FAST include its open-label design and lack of a placebo group, although Dr. MacDonald pointed out that a placebo group would have been unethical. Strengths included its large randomized trial design and good external validity, he added. “This is what will happen in clinical practice if you switch people from allopurinol to febuxostat.”

When asked how he would treat people with gout now given the FAST findings, Dr. MacDonald said, “I’m not a rheumatologist, I’m a cardiovascular physician. But I would say from the evidence from the FAST trial, it appears to be safe to give patients febuxostat whether or not they have cardiovascular risk factors or prior cardiovascular disease.”

“The FAST study indicates that febuxostat is similar to allopurinol in terms of cardiovascular events during the treatment period. The strengths of this study are its large sample size, excellent follow-up rate, and the relatively long follow-up time,” session moderator Shervin Assassi, MD, said when asked for comment. Dr. Assassi, director of the division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, was not involved in the research.

Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma funded the study. The University of Dundee receives research funds from Menarini. Dr. MacDonald disclosed that he received speaker or consultant fees from Menarini. Dr. Assassi had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: MacDonald T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract L08.

Febuxostat (Uloric) emerged as noninferior to allopurinol regarding risk of cardiovascular death among people 60 years and older with gout and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, results of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) suggest.

This primary outcome of the FAST trial stands in contrast to results of the CARES trial in 2018. The CARES researchers previously reported a 4.3% increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with febuxostat, compared with a 3.2% rate with allopurinol, a statistically significant 34% increase in the relative risk.

“In contrast to previous studies, there was no evidence of increased mortality with febuxostat, and we believe the regulators should review febuxostat licensing restrictions,” senior author Thomas MacDonald, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said during a late-breaking abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The results of the FAST trial were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Both febuxostat and allopurinol treat gout by lowering urate levels. Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat led to two post-licensing studies: the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Participants with Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) study, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and FAST, requested by the European Medicines Agency. In February 2019, the FDA added a warning about elevated cardiovascular death and death risk associated with febuxostat.

“When CARES was published, it was somewhat of a threat to our study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “After hearing from our data-monitoring committee, we were told we could continue the trial.”
 

Some switched from allopurinol to febuxostat

So Dr. MacDonald, lead author Isla Mackenzie, MBChB, and their colleagues enrolled 6,128 people with gout in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark between December 2011 and January 2018. They followed patients for a median of 4 years. Participants had a mean age of 71 years, 85% were men, and 33% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The investigators excluded anyone with a stroke or myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months.

All participants were being treated with allopurinol. The investigators titrated those not at target up to an ideal dose that achieved a serum urate concentration of less than 0.357 mmol/L (< 6 mg/dL). Next, they randomly assigned 3,065 people to continue allopurinol and another 3,063 to switch to 80-120 mg of febuxostat.

The primary outcome of the multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label FAST trial was a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal MI or biomarker positive for acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.
 

Key findings

“There was definitely a noninferior primary outcome,” Dr. MacDonald said. In the on-treatment analysis, 172 patients in the febuxostat group reached the composite endpoint versus 241 patients in the allopurinol group. There were 1.72 events per 100 patient-years in the febuxostat group versus 2.05 events in the allopurinol group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.03). An intent-to-treat analysis also found that febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol on this measure.

Urate levels were approximately 80 micromoles lower in the febuxostat group versus the allopurinol group each year of the study, Dr. MacDonald said.

At least one gout flare was experienced by 1,017 patients in the febuxostat group and by 1,044 participants in the allopurinol group. “However, there was no placebo group, so we don’t know the effectiveness of either of these agents at preventing flares” based on this research, he said.

Both the on-treatment and intention-to-treat (ITT) secondary analyses demonstrated the noninferiority of febuxostat, compared with allopurinol, for all-cause death, each individual component of the composite primary outcome – cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for new, unstable, or worsening angina.

In contrast, the ITT analysis revealed a “nominally significant increase” in hospitalization for arrhythmia with no evidence of ischemia in the febuxostat group. The 0.583 events per 100 patient-years in this group versus 0.385 events in the allopurinol cohort generated an adjusted HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.05-2.17).

In terms of all-cause mortality, 222 participants (7.2%) in the febuxostat group died, compared with 263 people (8.6%) in the allopurinol group.

Adverse events and withdrawals

A total 1,720 participants (57.3%) in the febuxostat group experienced at least one serious adverse event, as did 1,812 participants (59.4%) in the allopurinol group. Less than 1% of serious adverse events in each group were considered treatment-related.

Dr. MacDonald said that 6.2% of the febuxostat patients and 5.5% of the allopurinol group withdrew from the study. “We had pretty good follow-up [94%],” Dr. MacDonald said. “I don’t want to criticize CARES, but 47% did drop out of that study, and they could not follow them anymore.”

Limitations of FAST include its open-label design and lack of a placebo group, although Dr. MacDonald pointed out that a placebo group would have been unethical. Strengths included its large randomized trial design and good external validity, he added. “This is what will happen in clinical practice if you switch people from allopurinol to febuxostat.”

When asked how he would treat people with gout now given the FAST findings, Dr. MacDonald said, “I’m not a rheumatologist, I’m a cardiovascular physician. But I would say from the evidence from the FAST trial, it appears to be safe to give patients febuxostat whether or not they have cardiovascular risk factors or prior cardiovascular disease.”

“The FAST study indicates that febuxostat is similar to allopurinol in terms of cardiovascular events during the treatment period. The strengths of this study are its large sample size, excellent follow-up rate, and the relatively long follow-up time,” session moderator Shervin Assassi, MD, said when asked for comment. Dr. Assassi, director of the division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, was not involved in the research.

Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma funded the study. The University of Dundee receives research funds from Menarini. Dr. MacDonald disclosed that he received speaker or consultant fees from Menarini. Dr. Assassi had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: MacDonald T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract L08.

Febuxostat (Uloric) emerged as noninferior to allopurinol regarding risk of cardiovascular death among people 60 years and older with gout and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, results of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) suggest.

This primary outcome of the FAST trial stands in contrast to results of the CARES trial in 2018. The CARES researchers previously reported a 4.3% increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with febuxostat, compared with a 3.2% rate with allopurinol, a statistically significant 34% increase in the relative risk.

“In contrast to previous studies, there was no evidence of increased mortality with febuxostat, and we believe the regulators should review febuxostat licensing restrictions,” senior author Thomas MacDonald, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said during a late-breaking abstract session at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The results of the FAST trial were simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Both febuxostat and allopurinol treat gout by lowering urate levels. Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat led to two post-licensing studies: the Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Participants with Gout and Cardiovascular Comorbidities (CARES) study, mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and FAST, requested by the European Medicines Agency. In February 2019, the FDA added a warning about elevated cardiovascular death and death risk associated with febuxostat.

“When CARES was published, it was somewhat of a threat to our study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “After hearing from our data-monitoring committee, we were told we could continue the trial.”
 

Some switched from allopurinol to febuxostat

So Dr. MacDonald, lead author Isla Mackenzie, MBChB, and their colleagues enrolled 6,128 people with gout in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark between December 2011 and January 2018. They followed patients for a median of 4 years. Participants had a mean age of 71 years, 85% were men, and 33% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The investigators excluded anyone with a stroke or myocardial infarction in the previous 6 months.

All participants were being treated with allopurinol. The investigators titrated those not at target up to an ideal dose that achieved a serum urate concentration of less than 0.357 mmol/L (< 6 mg/dL). Next, they randomly assigned 3,065 people to continue allopurinol and another 3,063 to switch to 80-120 mg of febuxostat.

The primary outcome of the multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label FAST trial was a composite of hospitalization for nonfatal MI or biomarker positive for acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death.
 

Key findings

“There was definitely a noninferior primary outcome,” Dr. MacDonald said. In the on-treatment analysis, 172 patients in the febuxostat group reached the composite endpoint versus 241 patients in the allopurinol group. There were 1.72 events per 100 patient-years in the febuxostat group versus 2.05 events in the allopurinol group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.03). An intent-to-treat analysis also found that febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol on this measure.

Urate levels were approximately 80 micromoles lower in the febuxostat group versus the allopurinol group each year of the study, Dr. MacDonald said.

At least one gout flare was experienced by 1,017 patients in the febuxostat group and by 1,044 participants in the allopurinol group. “However, there was no placebo group, so we don’t know the effectiveness of either of these agents at preventing flares” based on this research, he said.

Both the on-treatment and intention-to-treat (ITT) secondary analyses demonstrated the noninferiority of febuxostat, compared with allopurinol, for all-cause death, each individual component of the composite primary outcome – cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for new, unstable, or worsening angina.

In contrast, the ITT analysis revealed a “nominally significant increase” in hospitalization for arrhythmia with no evidence of ischemia in the febuxostat group. The 0.583 events per 100 patient-years in this group versus 0.385 events in the allopurinol cohort generated an adjusted HR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.05-2.17).

In terms of all-cause mortality, 222 participants (7.2%) in the febuxostat group died, compared with 263 people (8.6%) in the allopurinol group.

Adverse events and withdrawals

A total 1,720 participants (57.3%) in the febuxostat group experienced at least one serious adverse event, as did 1,812 participants (59.4%) in the allopurinol group. Less than 1% of serious adverse events in each group were considered treatment-related.

Dr. MacDonald said that 6.2% of the febuxostat patients and 5.5% of the allopurinol group withdrew from the study. “We had pretty good follow-up [94%],” Dr. MacDonald said. “I don’t want to criticize CARES, but 47% did drop out of that study, and they could not follow them anymore.”

Limitations of FAST include its open-label design and lack of a placebo group, although Dr. MacDonald pointed out that a placebo group would have been unethical. Strengths included its large randomized trial design and good external validity, he added. “This is what will happen in clinical practice if you switch people from allopurinol to febuxostat.”

When asked how he would treat people with gout now given the FAST findings, Dr. MacDonald said, “I’m not a rheumatologist, I’m a cardiovascular physician. But I would say from the evidence from the FAST trial, it appears to be safe to give patients febuxostat whether or not they have cardiovascular risk factors or prior cardiovascular disease.”

“The FAST study indicates that febuxostat is similar to allopurinol in terms of cardiovascular events during the treatment period. The strengths of this study are its large sample size, excellent follow-up rate, and the relatively long follow-up time,” session moderator Shervin Assassi, MD, said when asked for comment. Dr. Assassi, director of the division of rheumatology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, was not involved in the research.

Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma funded the study. The University of Dundee receives research funds from Menarini. Dr. MacDonald disclosed that he received speaker or consultant fees from Menarini. Dr. Assassi had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: MacDonald T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract L08.

New proposed guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend that methotrexate (MTX) be used aggressively before other treatment options.

Previous guidelines, last updated in 2015, had not ranked the order of the treatments, said Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, principal investigator for the American College of Rheumatology’s treatment guidelines.

“There’s a strong emphasis on maximizing methotrexate using various means before switching to a biologic or JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor,” she said in a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The guidelines draft was developed collaboratively with clinicians, researchers, and patients. In addition, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of the literature.

Dr. Fraenkel, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said the exception for maximizing MTX would be for patients with low disease activity for whom treatments with other medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine, are feasible, she said.
 

Stop defaulting to prednisone

Another recommendation urges against the use of prednisone as a default treatment.

“We should really be trying to maximize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] and try to push the needle away from using prednisone as frequently as we do,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the panel wanted to emphasize that “even lower doses of prednisone can be harmful.”

She noted that patients on the guidelines panel said it’s hard to taper off prednisone.

Don Thomas, MD, who is in private rheumatology practice in Greenbelt, Md., said in an interview he loves the guidelines.

“Most of my patients are not on steroids,” he said, “which is a godsend because of the great therapies we have.”

He said he was glad to see support for exhausting methotrexate options first before trying new treatments.

“Too many of us are not as aggressive as we should be with using methotrexate initially,” he said.
 

Specific recommendations

In the proposed guidelines, MTX alone is strongly recommended over HCQ or sulfasalazine and is conditionally recommended over a conventional synthetic DMARD dual or triple combination. MTX alone is also conditionally recommended over MTX in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and is strongly recommended over MTX in combination with a non-TNF inhibitor, a biologic, or a targeted synthetic DMARD.

For patients with low disease activity who have not taken DMARDs, HCQ is recommended over other conventional synthetic DMARDs. Sulfasalazine is recommended over MTX, and MTX is recommended over leflunomide.

For initial treatment, oral MTX is conditionally recommended over subcutaneous administration. For patients who are not tolerating the oral version, “recommend split-dose or subcutaneous or increasing folic acid over switching to a new DMARD,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the oral recommendation was based largely on patient preference.
 

Use of glucocorticoids

For patients who need glucocorticoids to remain at target, adding or switching DMARDs is recommended over continuing glucocorticoids, the guidelines indicate.

“For patients on DMARDs and not at target, adding or switching DMARDs with or without the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids alone,” the proposed guidelines advise.
 

Tapering

Tapering should only be considered for patients “who have been at target for at least 6 months,” she said. “In these patients, continuation of all DMARDs at their current dose is conditionally recommended over any dose reduction.”

Dose reduction is recommended over gradual discontinuation, and gradual discontinuation is recommended over abruptly stopping.

Dr. Fraenkel acknowledged that the level of evidence is low to very low for many of the recommendations (only 7 of 44 recommendations were classified as strong), which, she said, underscores the importance of shared decision making for RA.

She added, “We really need trials to address clinically important questions driven by patients and not simply driven by [having] a new molecule to test.”

ACR says the final version of the proposed guidelines is expected to be simultaneously published in Arthritis Care and Research and Arthritis and Rheumatology by the end of the year.

These guidelines are focused on pharmacologic agents. Separate ACR guidelines will address nonpharmacologic management of RA and vaccine recommendations for inflammatory disease.

Dr. Fraenkel and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New proposed guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend that methotrexate (MTX) be used aggressively before other treatment options.

Previous guidelines, last updated in 2015, had not ranked the order of the treatments, said Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, principal investigator for the American College of Rheumatology’s treatment guidelines.

“There’s a strong emphasis on maximizing methotrexate using various means before switching to a biologic or JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor,” she said in a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The guidelines draft was developed collaboratively with clinicians, researchers, and patients. In addition, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of the literature.

Dr. Fraenkel, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said the exception for maximizing MTX would be for patients with low disease activity for whom treatments with other medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine, are feasible, she said.
 

Stop defaulting to prednisone

Another recommendation urges against the use of prednisone as a default treatment.

“We should really be trying to maximize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] and try to push the needle away from using prednisone as frequently as we do,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the panel wanted to emphasize that “even lower doses of prednisone can be harmful.”

She noted that patients on the guidelines panel said it’s hard to taper off prednisone.

Don Thomas, MD, who is in private rheumatology practice in Greenbelt, Md., said in an interview he loves the guidelines.

“Most of my patients are not on steroids,” he said, “which is a godsend because of the great therapies we have.”

He said he was glad to see support for exhausting methotrexate options first before trying new treatments.

“Too many of us are not as aggressive as we should be with using methotrexate initially,” he said.
 

Specific recommendations

In the proposed guidelines, MTX alone is strongly recommended over HCQ or sulfasalazine and is conditionally recommended over a conventional synthetic DMARD dual or triple combination. MTX alone is also conditionally recommended over MTX in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and is strongly recommended over MTX in combination with a non-TNF inhibitor, a biologic, or a targeted synthetic DMARD.

For patients with low disease activity who have not taken DMARDs, HCQ is recommended over other conventional synthetic DMARDs. Sulfasalazine is recommended over MTX, and MTX is recommended over leflunomide.

For initial treatment, oral MTX is conditionally recommended over subcutaneous administration. For patients who are not tolerating the oral version, “recommend split-dose or subcutaneous or increasing folic acid over switching to a new DMARD,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the oral recommendation was based largely on patient preference.
 

Use of glucocorticoids

For patients who need glucocorticoids to remain at target, adding or switching DMARDs is recommended over continuing glucocorticoids, the guidelines indicate.

“For patients on DMARDs and not at target, adding or switching DMARDs with or without the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids alone,” the proposed guidelines advise.
 

Tapering

Tapering should only be considered for patients “who have been at target for at least 6 months,” she said. “In these patients, continuation of all DMARDs at their current dose is conditionally recommended over any dose reduction.”

Dose reduction is recommended over gradual discontinuation, and gradual discontinuation is recommended over abruptly stopping.

Dr. Fraenkel acknowledged that the level of evidence is low to very low for many of the recommendations (only 7 of 44 recommendations were classified as strong), which, she said, underscores the importance of shared decision making for RA.

She added, “We really need trials to address clinically important questions driven by patients and not simply driven by [having] a new molecule to test.”

ACR says the final version of the proposed guidelines is expected to be simultaneously published in Arthritis Care and Research and Arthritis and Rheumatology by the end of the year.

These guidelines are focused on pharmacologic agents. Separate ACR guidelines will address nonpharmacologic management of RA and vaccine recommendations for inflammatory disease.

Dr. Fraenkel and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New proposed guidelines for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend that methotrexate (MTX) be used aggressively before other treatment options.

Previous guidelines, last updated in 2015, had not ranked the order of the treatments, said Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, principal investigator for the American College of Rheumatology’s treatment guidelines.

“There’s a strong emphasis on maximizing methotrexate using various means before switching to a biologic or JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor,” she said in a press conference at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The guidelines draft was developed collaboratively with clinicians, researchers, and patients. In addition, the authors conducted a comprehensive review of the literature.

Dr. Fraenkel, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., said the exception for maximizing MTX would be for patients with low disease activity for whom treatments with other medications, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and sulfasalazine, are feasible, she said.
 

Stop defaulting to prednisone

Another recommendation urges against the use of prednisone as a default treatment.

“We should really be trying to maximize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [DMARDs] and try to push the needle away from using prednisone as frequently as we do,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the panel wanted to emphasize that “even lower doses of prednisone can be harmful.”

She noted that patients on the guidelines panel said it’s hard to taper off prednisone.

Don Thomas, MD, who is in private rheumatology practice in Greenbelt, Md., said in an interview he loves the guidelines.

“Most of my patients are not on steroids,” he said, “which is a godsend because of the great therapies we have.”

He said he was glad to see support for exhausting methotrexate options first before trying new treatments.

“Too many of us are not as aggressive as we should be with using methotrexate initially,” he said.
 

Specific recommendations

In the proposed guidelines, MTX alone is strongly recommended over HCQ or sulfasalazine and is conditionally recommended over a conventional synthetic DMARD dual or triple combination. MTX alone is also conditionally recommended over MTX in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and is strongly recommended over MTX in combination with a non-TNF inhibitor, a biologic, or a targeted synthetic DMARD.

For patients with low disease activity who have not taken DMARDs, HCQ is recommended over other conventional synthetic DMARDs. Sulfasalazine is recommended over MTX, and MTX is recommended over leflunomide.

For initial treatment, oral MTX is conditionally recommended over subcutaneous administration. For patients who are not tolerating the oral version, “recommend split-dose or subcutaneous or increasing folic acid over switching to a new DMARD,” she said.

Dr. Fraenkel said the oral recommendation was based largely on patient preference.
 

Use of glucocorticoids

For patients who need glucocorticoids to remain at target, adding or switching DMARDs is recommended over continuing glucocorticoids, the guidelines indicate.

“For patients on DMARDs and not at target, adding or switching DMARDs with or without the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids is conditionally recommended over the use of intraarticular glucocorticoids alone,” the proposed guidelines advise.
 

Tapering

Tapering should only be considered for patients “who have been at target for at least 6 months,” she said. “In these patients, continuation of all DMARDs at their current dose is conditionally recommended over any dose reduction.”

Dose reduction is recommended over gradual discontinuation, and gradual discontinuation is recommended over abruptly stopping.

Dr. Fraenkel acknowledged that the level of evidence is low to very low for many of the recommendations (only 7 of 44 recommendations were classified as strong), which, she said, underscores the importance of shared decision making for RA.

She added, “We really need trials to address clinically important questions driven by patients and not simply driven by [having] a new molecule to test.”

ACR says the final version of the proposed guidelines is expected to be simultaneously published in Arthritis Care and Research and Arthritis and Rheumatology by the end of the year.

These guidelines are focused on pharmacologic agents. Separate ACR guidelines will address nonpharmacologic management of RA and vaccine recommendations for inflammatory disease.

Dr. Fraenkel and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding the immunomodulator mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to therapy with pegloticase (Krystexxa) may improve outcomes in patients with refractory gout, results of the proof-of-concept RECIPE trial suggest.

In the phase 2 trial, 19 of 22 patients randomized to received pegloticase and MMF achieved the primary outcome of serum uric acid levels below 6 mg/dL at week 12, compared with 4 of 10 patients assigned to pegloticase and placebo, reported Puja Khanna MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“The use of MMF was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful impact on the proportion of subjects who achieved and maintained a serum urate of less than 6 mg/dL. Short-term concomitant use of MMF with pegloticase was generally well tolerated, and the estimated rates of adverse events were comparable between the groups,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Pegloticase is a pegylated recombinant form of porcine uricase that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of gout in patients for whom other therapies have failed.

The drug’s use is limited, however, by immunogenicity, with high antipegloticase antibody titers associated with a loss of response.

“The PEG portion of the molecule, the polyethylene glycol component, can initiate an immune response that would cause significant infusion reactions and preclude further use of the medication for our patients,” explained Suleman Bhana, MD, a rheumatologist with Crystal Run Healthcare in New York’s Hudson Valley, who was not involved in the study.

“By trying to attenuate that immune response by whatever means one can, that could reduce the risk of these infusion reactions and lead to longevity and continuing efficacy of the medication,” he said.
 

Study details

The RECIPE trial was designed to test whether concomitant immunomodulation could prolong the efficacy of pegloticase therapy by dampening immune reactions.

Investigators enrolled patients 18 years and older who met 2015 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism gout classification criteria and had chronic refractory disease, defined as having symptoms inadequately controlled with oral urate-lowering therapy or a contraindication to ULT.

A total of 42 patients from five rheumatology practices were screened, and 35 were randomized on a 3:1 basis. In the intention-to-treat analysis of the results, the investigators included 32 patients: 22 in the MMF/pegloticase group and 10 placebo-treated controls who had received at least one dose of pegloticase.

Men comprised approximately 90% of the patients in each study arm, with the mean patient age around 55 years. In both groups, patients had a median of one gout flare in the prior year, and a mean duration of gout of 13 years plus a few months.

The patients’ prior urate-lowering agents included allopurinol and febuxostat, and patients had received colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids for acute gout.

The mean serum urate levels at baseline were 8.9 mg/dL in the MMF group, and 9.8 mg/dL in the placebo group.

Patients were given either MMF 1 g twice daily or a placebo during a 2-week run-in, with the assigned medications continuing for the first 12 weeks concomitantly with pegloticase. The uricase was given intravenously at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks for a total of 12 infusions.

As noted before, 86% of patients in the MMF arm (19 of 22) reached the primary outcome of serum uric acid levels below 6 mg/dL by week 12, compared with 40% (4 of 10) in the placebo arm (P = .01).

Week 24 serum uric acid response, a secondary endpoint, was sustained in 68% of patients in the MMF arm, compared with 30% in the placebo arm (P = .03).

“We found no significant differences between the groups in the absolute change in serum urate from baseline to week 24, or from week 12 to 24. We also did not find any differences between the treatment arms for the PROMIS [Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System] or for the Gout Impact Scale,” Dr. Khanna said.

The most commonly reported adverse events included gout flares in 13% of patients in the MMF group and 3% in the placebo group, cardiac disorders in 3% versus 2%, respectively, and gastrointestinal disorders in 9% versus 2%.

Adverse events that occurred only in the MMF group included infections (3%), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (18%), and respiratory events.

Three patients in the placebo arm had infusion reactions, two of which occurred during the first infusion, and one during the second. One of the reactions was considered serious and required hospitalization, but all infusion reactions resolved and none were fatal. There were no infusion reactions in the MMF arm.

Maybe methotrexate instead?

“The efficacy data for mycophenolate in the RECIPE study are convincing, and suggest that this combination substantially increases the proportion of people who respond to pegloticase,” commented Nicola Dalbeth, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Auckland (New Zealand), who moderated the session where the RECIPE data were reported.

“Previous open-label studies of methotrexate with pegloticase [e.g., the MIRROR study] suggest that methotrexate is another effective option to increase the response to pegloticase. However, at this stage, placebo-controlled trials of methotrexate have not been reported. I think a key consideration will be safety, and which option [methotrexate vs. mycophenolate] is safer, noting that many patients with severe gout have important comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Bhana also noted that there are multiple factors that might determine the choice of MMF or methotrexate as an immunomodulatory partner for pegloticase.

“Some gout patients have chronic kidney disease or a variety of comorbidities – high uric acid can also cause kidney damage – and if they have a kidney illness, methotrexate may not be a safe medicine because there’s a risk of further toxicity that can lead to bone marrow suppression, which I have seen personally in patients, and in this case mycophenolate would be the preferred option,” he said.

The study was sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, with collaboration from the University of Michigan, as well as the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Horizon, which makes pegloticase. Dr. Khanna disclosed grant and research support from Dyve, Selecta, and Sobi, and consulting for Sobi and Horizon. Dr. Dalbeth disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Arthrosi, Dyve, Selecta, and Janssen. Dr. Bhana disclosed nonbranded consulting work for Horizon.

SOURCE: Khanna P et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 0952.

Adding the immunomodulator mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to therapy with pegloticase (Krystexxa) may improve outcomes in patients with refractory gout, results of the proof-of-concept RECIPE trial suggest.

In the phase 2 trial, 19 of 22 patients randomized to received pegloticase and MMF achieved the primary outcome of serum uric acid levels below 6 mg/dL at week 12, compared with 4 of 10 patients assigned to pegloticase and placebo, reported Puja Khanna MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“The use of MMF was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful impact on the proportion of subjects who achieved and maintained a serum urate of less than 6 mg/dL. Short-term concomitant use of MMF with pegloticase was generally well tolerated, and the estimated rates of adverse events were comparable between the groups,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Pegloticase is a pegylated recombinant form of porcine uricase that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of gout in patients for whom other therapies have failed.

The drug’s use is limited, however, by immunogenicity, with high antipegloticase antibody titers associated with a loss of response.

“The PEG portion of the molecule, the polyethylene glycol component, can initiate an immune response that would cause significant infusion reactions and preclude further use of the medication for our patients,” explained Suleman Bhana, MD, a rheumatologist with Crystal Run Healthcare in New York’s Hudson Valley, who was not involved in the study.

“By trying to attenuate that immune response by whatever means one can, that could reduce the risk of these infusion reactions and lead to longevity and continuing efficacy of the medication,” he said.
 

Study details

The RECIPE trial was designed to test whether concomitant immunomodulation could prolong the efficacy of pegloticase therapy by dampening immune reactions.

Investigators enrolled patients 18 years and older who met 2015 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism gout classification criteria and had chronic refractory disease, defined as having symptoms inadequately controlled with oral urate-lowering therapy or a contraindication to ULT.

A total of 42 patients from five rheumatology practices were screened, and 35 were randomized on a 3:1 basis. In the intention-to-treat analysis of the results, the investigators included 32 patients: 22 in the MMF/pegloticase group and 10 placebo-treated controls who had received at least one dose of pegloticase.

Men comprised approximately 90% of the patients in each study arm, with the mean patient age around 55 years. In both groups, patients had a median of one gout flare in the prior year, and a mean duration of gout of 13 years plus a few months.

The patients’ prior urate-lowering agents included allopurinol and febuxostat, and patients had received colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids for acute gout.

The mean serum urate levels at baseline were 8.9 mg/dL in the MMF group, and 9.8 mg/dL in the placebo group.

Patients were given either MMF 1 g twice daily or a placebo during a 2-week run-in, with the assigned medications continuing for the first 12 weeks concomitantly with pegloticase. The uricase was given intravenously at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks for a total of 12 infusions.

As noted before, 86% of patients in the MMF arm (19 of 22) reached the primary outcome of serum uric acid levels below 6 mg/dL by week 12, compared with 40% (4 of 10) in the placebo arm (P = .01).

Week 24 serum uric acid response, a secondary endpoint, was sustained in 68% of patients in the MMF arm, compared with 30% in the placebo arm (P = .03).

“We found no significant differences between the groups in the absolute change in serum urate from baseline to week 24, or from week 12 to 24. We also did not find any differences between the treatment arms for the PROMIS [Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System] or for the Gout Impact Scale,” Dr. Khanna said.

The most commonly reported adverse events included gout flares in 13% of patients in the MMF group and 3% in the placebo group, cardiac disorders in 3% versus 2%, respectively, and gastrointestinal disorders in 9% versus 2%.

Adverse events that occurred only in the MMF group included infections (3%), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (18%), and respiratory events.

Three patients in the placebo arm had infusion reactions, two of which occurred during the first infusion, and one during the second. One of the reactions was considered serious and required hospitalization, but all infusion reactions resolved and none were fatal. There were no infusion reactions in the MMF arm.

Maybe methotrexate instead?

“The efficacy data for mycophenolate in the RECIPE study are convincing, and suggest that this combination substantially increases the proportion of people who respond to pegloticase,” commented Nicola Dalbeth, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Auckland (New Zealand), who moderated the session where the RECIPE data were reported.

“Previous open-label studies of methotrexate with pegloticase [e.g., the MIRROR study] suggest that methotrexate is another effective option to increase the response to pegloticase. However, at this stage, placebo-controlled trials of methotrexate have not been reported. I think a key consideration will be safety, and which option [methotrexate vs. mycophenolate] is safer, noting that many patients with severe gout have important comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Bhana also noted that there are multiple factors that might determine the choice of MMF or methotrexate as an immunomodulatory partner for pegloticase.

“Some gout patients have chronic kidney disease or a variety of comorbidities – high uric acid can also cause kidney damage – and if they have a kidney illness, methotrexate may not be a safe medicine because there’s a risk of further toxicity that can lead to bone marrow suppression, which I have seen personally in patients, and in this case mycophenolate would be the preferred option,” he said.

The study was sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, with collaboration from the University of Michigan, as well as the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Horizon, which makes pegloticase. Dr. Khanna disclosed grant and research support from Dyve, Selecta, and Sobi, and consulting for Sobi and Horizon. Dr. Dalbeth disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Arthrosi, Dyve, Selecta, and Janssen. Dr. Bhana disclosed nonbranded consulting work for Horizon.

SOURCE: Khanna P et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 0952.

Adding the immunomodulator mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to therapy with pegloticase (Krystexxa) may improve outcomes in patients with refractory gout, results of the proof-of-concept RECIPE trial suggest.

In the phase 2 trial, 19 of 22 patients randomized to received pegloticase and MMF achieved the primary outcome of serum uric acid levels below 6 mg/dL at week 12, compared with 4 of 10 patients assigned to pegloticase and placebo, reported Puja Khanna MD, MPH, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“The use of MMF was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful impact on the proportion of subjects who achieved and maintained a serum urate of less than 6 mg/dL. Short-term concomitant use of MMF with pegloticase was generally well tolerated, and the estimated rates of adverse events were comparable between the groups,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Pegloticase is a pegylated recombinant form of porcine uricase that has been shown to be effective in the treatment of gout in patients for whom other therapies have failed.

The drug’s use is limited, however, by immunogenicity, with high antipegloticase antibody titers associated with a loss of response.

“The PEG portion of the molecule, the polyethylene glycol component, can initiate an immune response that would cause significant infusion reactions and preclude further use of the medication for our patients,” explained Suleman Bhana, MD, a rheumatologist with Crystal Run Healthcare in New York’s Hudson Valley, who was not involved in the study.

“By trying to attenuate that immune response by whatever means one can, that could reduce the risk of these infusion reactions and lead to longevity and continuing efficacy of the medication,” he said.
 

Study details

The RECIPE trial was designed to test whether concomitant immunomodulation could prolong the efficacy of pegloticase therapy by dampening immune reactions.

Investigators enrolled patients 18 years and older who met 2015 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism gout classification criteria and had chronic refractory disease, defined as having symptoms inadequately controlled with oral urate-lowering therapy or a contraindication to ULT.

A total of 42 patients from five rheumatology practices were screened, and 35 were randomized on a 3:1 basis. In the intention-to-treat analysis of the results, the investigators included 32 patients: 22 in the MMF/pegloticase group and 10 placebo-treated controls who had received at least one dose of pegloticase.

Men comprised approximately 90% of the patients in each study arm, with the mean patient age around 55 years. In both groups, patients had a median of one gout flare in the prior year, and a mean duration of gout of 13 years plus a few months.

The patients’ prior urate-lowering agents included allopurinol and febuxostat, and patients had received colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids for acute gout.

The mean serum urate levels at baseline were 8.9 mg/dL in the MMF group, and 9.8 mg/dL in the placebo group.

Patients were given either MMF 1 g twice daily or a placebo during a 2-week run-in, with the assigned medications continuing for the first 12 weeks concomitantly with pegloticase. The uricase was given intravenously at a dose of 8 mg every 2 weeks for a total of 12 infusions.

As noted before, 86% of patients in the MMF arm (19 of 22) reached the primary outcome of serum uric acid levels below 6 mg/dL by week 12, compared with 40% (4 of 10) in the placebo arm (P = .01).

Week 24 serum uric acid response, a secondary endpoint, was sustained in 68% of patients in the MMF arm, compared with 30% in the placebo arm (P = .03).

“We found no significant differences between the groups in the absolute change in serum urate from baseline to week 24, or from week 12 to 24. We also did not find any differences between the treatment arms for the PROMIS [Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System] or for the Gout Impact Scale,” Dr. Khanna said.

The most commonly reported adverse events included gout flares in 13% of patients in the MMF group and 3% in the placebo group, cardiac disorders in 3% versus 2%, respectively, and gastrointestinal disorders in 9% versus 2%.

Adverse events that occurred only in the MMF group included infections (3%), musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (18%), and respiratory events.

Three patients in the placebo arm had infusion reactions, two of which occurred during the first infusion, and one during the second. One of the reactions was considered serious and required hospitalization, but all infusion reactions resolved and none were fatal. There were no infusion reactions in the MMF arm.

Maybe methotrexate instead?

“The efficacy data for mycophenolate in the RECIPE study are convincing, and suggest that this combination substantially increases the proportion of people who respond to pegloticase,” commented Nicola Dalbeth, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Auckland (New Zealand), who moderated the session where the RECIPE data were reported.

“Previous open-label studies of methotrexate with pegloticase [e.g., the MIRROR study] suggest that methotrexate is another effective option to increase the response to pegloticase. However, at this stage, placebo-controlled trials of methotrexate have not been reported. I think a key consideration will be safety, and which option [methotrexate vs. mycophenolate] is safer, noting that many patients with severe gout have important comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and liver disease,” she said.

Dr. Bhana also noted that there are multiple factors that might determine the choice of MMF or methotrexate as an immunomodulatory partner for pegloticase.

“Some gout patients have chronic kidney disease or a variety of comorbidities – high uric acid can also cause kidney damage – and if they have a kidney illness, methotrexate may not be a safe medicine because there’s a risk of further toxicity that can lead to bone marrow suppression, which I have seen personally in patients, and in this case mycophenolate would be the preferred option,” he said.

The study was sponsored by the University of Alabama at Birmingham, with collaboration from the University of Michigan, as well as the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Horizon, which makes pegloticase. Dr. Khanna disclosed grant and research support from Dyve, Selecta, and Sobi, and consulting for Sobi and Horizon. Dr. Dalbeth disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Arthrosi, Dyve, Selecta, and Janssen. Dr. Bhana disclosed nonbranded consulting work for Horizon.

SOURCE: Khanna P et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10), Abstract 0952.

Denosumab boosted bone mineral density (BMD) over 12 months to a greater extent than did alendronate in a randomized, 12-month study. The investigator-initiated research compared BMD at the lumbar spine and elsewhere among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune conditions. Long-term glucocorticoid therapy places some people in this group at higher risk for adverse effects of bone density loss.

“Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment of rheumatic diseases, but [they are] a major risk factor for osteoporosis and fracture,” study author Chi Chiu Mok, MD, said in an interview.

Compared with baseline, adults randomly assigned to denosumab had a 3.5% increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months, compared with 2.5% among those taking alendronate, a significant difference. Dr. Mok, a consultant and honorary associate professor in the department of medicine and nuclear medicine at Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Given the knowledge that denosumab is more effective than alendronate in raising spinal BMD in chronic users of GCs without increasing adverse events, this drug may be considered as an alternative first-line therapy in higher-risk patients and in those who are contraindicated for the oral bisphosphonates,” he said.
 

Cost considerations

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody administered as a subcutaneous injection, available under the brand names Prolia and Xgeva. Alendronate is an oral agent available as both generic and brand name formulations.

“Yes, denosumab is more expensive, more costly than oral alendronate, but our study shows efficacy is better for steroid users,” Dr. Mok said in answer to a question about cost disparity between the two agents during his presentation at the meeting. “For patients who are contraindicated or have low compliance for bisphosphonate, or are high-risk patients, I recommend first-line use of denosumab.”

Researchers previously studied these agents, including a smaller study by Dr. Mok and colleagues that showed a BMD benefit after switching people on an oral bisphosphonate to denosumab. However, he said, “There is a paucity of data regarding comparative efficacy of denosumab and the bisphosphonates in long-term steroid users.”

To explore any differences in a larger patient population, the investigators randomly assigned adults with SLE and other autoimmune conditions to the two treatments: denosumab 60 mg subcutaneoulsy every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg/week. All patients also received 3,000 mg calcium and 1,000 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) each day.

After three discontinuations in denosumab cohort and four in the alendronate group, the researchers evaluated 69 people taking denosumab and 70 others taking alendronate. The discontinuations were caused by noncompliance, Dr. Mok said, not by adverse events.

Adverse events were reported, but the rate did not differ significantly between groups. Dr. Mok highlighted some notable differences, including more minor infections and arthralgias reported in the denosumab cohort. Chest discomfort was reported in one denosumab recipient versus no patients in the alendronate group. Dyspepsia/upper GI symptoms and dizziness/vertigo occurred more often in the alendronate group.

Women were 96% of the study population, and mean age was 50 years. A majority, 81%, had underlying SLE. Other diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, and polymyalgia rheumatica. The mean dose of prednisolone at study entry was 5.1 mg/day.
 

Key BMD and biomarker findings

BMD increased significantly in the spine, hip, and femoral neck in both treatment groups by 12 months. However, after adjustment for baseline BMD and covariates including age, menopause, and history of fracture, the gains in the denosumab group were significantly higher.

The increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months of 3.5% in the denosumab group versus 2.5% in the alendronate group was statistically significant (P = .045). Less significant was a 0.9% increase at the hip in the denosumab patients versus 1.6% in the alendronate group (P = .10), as well as femoral neck BMD gains of 1% in the denosumab group versus 1.5% in the alendronate group (P = .86).

Furthermore, “denosumab was more potent in suppressing the bone markers at 12 months,” Dr. Mok said.

Specifically, the percentage decrease in serum PINP (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) levels in the denosumab group was significantly greater than in the alendronate group (P = .001). Likewise, the decrease in CTX (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) was significantly greater in the denosumab cohort versus the alendronate cohort (P < .001).

“Dr. Mok’s study was a well-controlled investigation. The superiority of denosumab was impressive, especially given the small group sizes of 69 and 70,” session comoderator Gregg Silverman, MD, professor in the department of internal medicine and the department of pathology at New York University, said when asked for comment.

“However, bone density measurements may not tell the whole story. These results support a bigger and much larger-scale study to confirm that rates of fracture on denosumab are also reduced.”

No new symptomatic fractures occurred in either group during the study. The investigators are evaluating for any new radiologic fractures, with results pending.

Dr. Mok said “results of our study in Asian patients are largely confirmatory” of a previous 2018 comparison study and a 2019 comparison study, each sponsored by Amgen.

A small sample size, short duration of treatment, and the open-label design were limitations of the study.

The trial was an investigator-initiated study. Dr. Mok and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mok CC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract 1442.

Denosumab boosted bone mineral density (BMD) over 12 months to a greater extent than did alendronate in a randomized, 12-month study. The investigator-initiated research compared BMD at the lumbar spine and elsewhere among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune conditions. Long-term glucocorticoid therapy places some people in this group at higher risk for adverse effects of bone density loss.

“Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment of rheumatic diseases, but [they are] a major risk factor for osteoporosis and fracture,” study author Chi Chiu Mok, MD, said in an interview.

Compared with baseline, adults randomly assigned to denosumab had a 3.5% increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months, compared with 2.5% among those taking alendronate, a significant difference. Dr. Mok, a consultant and honorary associate professor in the department of medicine and nuclear medicine at Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Given the knowledge that denosumab is more effective than alendronate in raising spinal BMD in chronic users of GCs without increasing adverse events, this drug may be considered as an alternative first-line therapy in higher-risk patients and in those who are contraindicated for the oral bisphosphonates,” he said.
 

Cost considerations

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody administered as a subcutaneous injection, available under the brand names Prolia and Xgeva. Alendronate is an oral agent available as both generic and brand name formulations.

“Yes, denosumab is more expensive, more costly than oral alendronate, but our study shows efficacy is better for steroid users,” Dr. Mok said in answer to a question about cost disparity between the two agents during his presentation at the meeting. “For patients who are contraindicated or have low compliance for bisphosphonate, or are high-risk patients, I recommend first-line use of denosumab.”

Researchers previously studied these agents, including a smaller study by Dr. Mok and colleagues that showed a BMD benefit after switching people on an oral bisphosphonate to denosumab. However, he said, “There is a paucity of data regarding comparative efficacy of denosumab and the bisphosphonates in long-term steroid users.”

To explore any differences in a larger patient population, the investigators randomly assigned adults with SLE and other autoimmune conditions to the two treatments: denosumab 60 mg subcutaneoulsy every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg/week. All patients also received 3,000 mg calcium and 1,000 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) each day.

After three discontinuations in denosumab cohort and four in the alendronate group, the researchers evaluated 69 people taking denosumab and 70 others taking alendronate. The discontinuations were caused by noncompliance, Dr. Mok said, not by adverse events.

Adverse events were reported, but the rate did not differ significantly between groups. Dr. Mok highlighted some notable differences, including more minor infections and arthralgias reported in the denosumab cohort. Chest discomfort was reported in one denosumab recipient versus no patients in the alendronate group. Dyspepsia/upper GI symptoms and dizziness/vertigo occurred more often in the alendronate group.

Women were 96% of the study population, and mean age was 50 years. A majority, 81%, had underlying SLE. Other diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, and polymyalgia rheumatica. The mean dose of prednisolone at study entry was 5.1 mg/day.
 

Key BMD and biomarker findings

BMD increased significantly in the spine, hip, and femoral neck in both treatment groups by 12 months. However, after adjustment for baseline BMD and covariates including age, menopause, and history of fracture, the gains in the denosumab group were significantly higher.

The increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months of 3.5% in the denosumab group versus 2.5% in the alendronate group was statistically significant (P = .045). Less significant was a 0.9% increase at the hip in the denosumab patients versus 1.6% in the alendronate group (P = .10), as well as femoral neck BMD gains of 1% in the denosumab group versus 1.5% in the alendronate group (P = .86).

Furthermore, “denosumab was more potent in suppressing the bone markers at 12 months,” Dr. Mok said.

Specifically, the percentage decrease in serum PINP (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) levels in the denosumab group was significantly greater than in the alendronate group (P = .001). Likewise, the decrease in CTX (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) was significantly greater in the denosumab cohort versus the alendronate cohort (P < .001).

“Dr. Mok’s study was a well-controlled investigation. The superiority of denosumab was impressive, especially given the small group sizes of 69 and 70,” session comoderator Gregg Silverman, MD, professor in the department of internal medicine and the department of pathology at New York University, said when asked for comment.

“However, bone density measurements may not tell the whole story. These results support a bigger and much larger-scale study to confirm that rates of fracture on denosumab are also reduced.”

No new symptomatic fractures occurred in either group during the study. The investigators are evaluating for any new radiologic fractures, with results pending.

Dr. Mok said “results of our study in Asian patients are largely confirmatory” of a previous 2018 comparison study and a 2019 comparison study, each sponsored by Amgen.

A small sample size, short duration of treatment, and the open-label design were limitations of the study.

The trial was an investigator-initiated study. Dr. Mok and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mok CC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract 1442.

Denosumab boosted bone mineral density (BMD) over 12 months to a greater extent than did alendronate in a randomized, 12-month study. The investigator-initiated research compared BMD at the lumbar spine and elsewhere among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other autoimmune conditions. Long-term glucocorticoid therapy places some people in this group at higher risk for adverse effects of bone density loss.

“Glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of treatment of rheumatic diseases, but [they are] a major risk factor for osteoporosis and fracture,” study author Chi Chiu Mok, MD, said in an interview.

Compared with baseline, adults randomly assigned to denosumab had a 3.5% increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months, compared with 2.5% among those taking alendronate, a significant difference. Dr. Mok, a consultant and honorary associate professor in the department of medicine and nuclear medicine at Tuen Mun Hospital in Hong Kong, presented the study results at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Given the knowledge that denosumab is more effective than alendronate in raising spinal BMD in chronic users of GCs without increasing adverse events, this drug may be considered as an alternative first-line therapy in higher-risk patients and in those who are contraindicated for the oral bisphosphonates,” he said.
 

Cost considerations

Denosumab is a human monoclonal antibody administered as a subcutaneous injection, available under the brand names Prolia and Xgeva. Alendronate is an oral agent available as both generic and brand name formulations.

“Yes, denosumab is more expensive, more costly than oral alendronate, but our study shows efficacy is better for steroid users,” Dr. Mok said in answer to a question about cost disparity between the two agents during his presentation at the meeting. “For patients who are contraindicated or have low compliance for bisphosphonate, or are high-risk patients, I recommend first-line use of denosumab.”

Researchers previously studied these agents, including a smaller study by Dr. Mok and colleagues that showed a BMD benefit after switching people on an oral bisphosphonate to denosumab. However, he said, “There is a paucity of data regarding comparative efficacy of denosumab and the bisphosphonates in long-term steroid users.”

To explore any differences in a larger patient population, the investigators randomly assigned adults with SLE and other autoimmune conditions to the two treatments: denosumab 60 mg subcutaneoulsy every 6 months or oral alendronate 70 mg/week. All patients also received 3,000 mg calcium and 1,000 IU vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) each day.

After three discontinuations in denosumab cohort and four in the alendronate group, the researchers evaluated 69 people taking denosumab and 70 others taking alendronate. The discontinuations were caused by noncompliance, Dr. Mok said, not by adverse events.

Adverse events were reported, but the rate did not differ significantly between groups. Dr. Mok highlighted some notable differences, including more minor infections and arthralgias reported in the denosumab cohort. Chest discomfort was reported in one denosumab recipient versus no patients in the alendronate group. Dyspepsia/upper GI symptoms and dizziness/vertigo occurred more often in the alendronate group.

Women were 96% of the study population, and mean age was 50 years. A majority, 81%, had underlying SLE. Other diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, and polymyalgia rheumatica. The mean dose of prednisolone at study entry was 5.1 mg/day.
 

Key BMD and biomarker findings

BMD increased significantly in the spine, hip, and femoral neck in both treatment groups by 12 months. However, after adjustment for baseline BMD and covariates including age, menopause, and history of fracture, the gains in the denosumab group were significantly higher.

The increase in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months of 3.5% in the denosumab group versus 2.5% in the alendronate group was statistically significant (P = .045). Less significant was a 0.9% increase at the hip in the denosumab patients versus 1.6% in the alendronate group (P = .10), as well as femoral neck BMD gains of 1% in the denosumab group versus 1.5% in the alendronate group (P = .86).

Furthermore, “denosumab was more potent in suppressing the bone markers at 12 months,” Dr. Mok said.

Specifically, the percentage decrease in serum PINP (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide) levels in the denosumab group was significantly greater than in the alendronate group (P = .001). Likewise, the decrease in CTX (C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen) was significantly greater in the denosumab cohort versus the alendronate cohort (P < .001).

“Dr. Mok’s study was a well-controlled investigation. The superiority of denosumab was impressive, especially given the small group sizes of 69 and 70,” session comoderator Gregg Silverman, MD, professor in the department of internal medicine and the department of pathology at New York University, said when asked for comment.

“However, bone density measurements may not tell the whole story. These results support a bigger and much larger-scale study to confirm that rates of fracture on denosumab are also reduced.”

No new symptomatic fractures occurred in either group during the study. The investigators are evaluating for any new radiologic fractures, with results pending.

Dr. Mok said “results of our study in Asian patients are largely confirmatory” of a previous 2018 comparison study and a 2019 comparison study, each sponsored by Amgen.

A small sample size, short duration of treatment, and the open-label design were limitations of the study.

The trial was an investigator-initiated study. Dr. Mok and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Silverman had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Mok CC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10). ACR 2020, Abstract 1442.