Psoriatic Arthritis

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Uptake of infliximab biosimilars rose slowly across private insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare when two were available in the United States during 2016-2020 but increased significantly through 2022 after the third biosimilar became available in July 2020. However, prescriptions in Medicare still lagged behind those in private insurance and Medicaid.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists who participated in a national registry, the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), for all infliximab administrations (bio-originator or biosimilar) to patients older than 18 years from April 2016 to September 2022.
• They conducted an interrupted time series to account for autocorrelation and model the effect of each infliximab biosimilar release (infliximab-dyyb in November 2016, infliximab-abda in July 2017, and infliximab-axxq in July 2020) on uptake across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.

TAKEAWAY:

• The researchers identified 659,988 infliximab administrations for 37,560 unique patients, with 52% on Medicare, 4.8% on Medicaid, and 43% on private insurance.
• Biosimilar uptake rose slowly with average annual increases < 5% from 2016 to June 2020 (Medicare, 3.2%; Medicaid, 5.2%; private insurance, 1.8%).
• After the third biosimilar release in July 2020, the average annual increase reached 13% for Medicaid and 16.4% for private insurance but remained low for Medicare (5.6%).
• By September 2022, biosimilar uptake was higher for Medicaid (43.8%) and private insurance (38.5%) than for Medicare (24%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest policymakers may need to do more to allow biosimilars to get a foothold in the market by incentivizing the development and entry of multiple biosimilars, address anticompetitive pricing strategies, and may need to amend Medicare policy to [incentivize] uptake in order to ensure a competitive and sustainable biosimilar market that gradually reduces total drug expenditures and out-of-pocket costs over time,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Eric T. Roberts, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on July 30, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

First, while the biosimilar introductions are likely catalysts for many changes in the market, some changes in slopes may also be attributable to the natural growth of the market over time. Second, this study may neither be generalizable to academic medical centers, which are underrepresented in RISE, nor be generalizable to infliximab prescriptions from other specialties. Third, uptake among privately insured patients changed shortly after November-December 2020, raising the possibility that the delay reflected negotiations between insurance companies and relevant entities regarding formulary coverage.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. One author disclosed receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb and grant funding from AstraZeneca, the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, and Aurinia.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Since 2014, opioid use for autoimmune rheumatic decreased by 15% annually while other management modalities increased or stabilized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed de-identified US claims data from the MarketScan Database from 2007-2021.
• The study included nearly 142,000 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: 10,927 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); 21,438 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); 71,393 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 16,718 with Sjögren disease; 18,018 with systemic lupus erythematosus; and 3468 with systemic sclerosis.
• Primary outcome was opioid use annual trends, with secondary outcomes including trends in the use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical pain medications, and physical or occupational therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of opioid use increased annually by 4% until 2014 and decreased annually by 15% after 2014.
• NSAID use increased 2% annually until 2014, then declined by 5% afterward.
• The proportion of patients utilizing physical therapy or anticonvulsants doubled from 2008 to 2020.
• NSAID prescriptions were highest in AS, PsA, and RA, while they were lowest in Sjögren disease and systemic sclerosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our work, along with the published literature, highlights the need for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management modality changes over time and to understand the possible effects that changes have had on outcomes such as quality of life, disability, health status, and function,” wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Titilola Falasinnu, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on administrative claims data, which did not contain information on use of over-the-counter medications like NSAIDs and topical analgesics. The study did not include the duration of pain treatment modalities, making it difficult to differentiate between acute and chronic use. The analysis did not include race or ethnicity, which is important for understanding pain outcomes across different sociodemographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Since 2014, opioid use for autoimmune rheumatic decreased by 15% annually while other management modalities increased or stabilized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed de-identified US claims data from the MarketScan Database from 2007-2021.
• The study included nearly 142,000 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: 10,927 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); 21,438 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); 71,393 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 16,718 with Sjögren disease; 18,018 with systemic lupus erythematosus; and 3468 with systemic sclerosis.
• Primary outcome was opioid use annual trends, with secondary outcomes including trends in the use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical pain medications, and physical or occupational therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of opioid use increased annually by 4% until 2014 and decreased annually by 15% after 2014.
• NSAID use increased 2% annually until 2014, then declined by 5% afterward.
• The proportion of patients utilizing physical therapy or anticonvulsants doubled from 2008 to 2020.
• NSAID prescriptions were highest in AS, PsA, and RA, while they were lowest in Sjögren disease and systemic sclerosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our work, along with the published literature, highlights the need for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management modality changes over time and to understand the possible effects that changes have had on outcomes such as quality of life, disability, health status, and function,” wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Titilola Falasinnu, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on administrative claims data, which did not contain information on use of over-the-counter medications like NSAIDs and topical analgesics. The study did not include the duration of pain treatment modalities, making it difficult to differentiate between acute and chronic use. The analysis did not include race or ethnicity, which is important for understanding pain outcomes across different sociodemographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Since 2014, opioid use for autoimmune rheumatic decreased by 15% annually while other management modalities increased or stabilized.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed de-identified US claims data from the MarketScan Database from 2007-2021.
• The study included nearly 142,000 patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: 10,927 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS); 21,438 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA); 71,393 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 16,718 with Sjögren disease; 18,018 with systemic lupus erythematosus; and 3468 with systemic sclerosis.
• Primary outcome was opioid use annual trends, with secondary outcomes including trends in the use of anticonvulsants, antidepressants, skeletal muscle relaxants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical pain medications, and physical or occupational therapy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of opioid use increased annually by 4% until 2014 and decreased annually by 15% after 2014.
• NSAID use increased 2% annually until 2014, then declined by 5% afterward.
• The proportion of patients utilizing physical therapy or anticonvulsants doubled from 2008 to 2020.
• NSAID prescriptions were highest in AS, PsA, and RA, while they were lowest in Sjögren disease and systemic sclerosis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our work, along with the published literature, highlights the need for future studies to evaluate the effectiveness of pain management modality changes over time and to understand the possible effects that changes have had on outcomes such as quality of life, disability, health status, and function,” wrote the authors of the study. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Titilola Falasinnu, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. It was published online in The Lancet Rheumatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on administrative claims data, which did not contain information on use of over-the-counter medications like NSAIDs and topical analgesics. The study did not include the duration of pain treatment modalities, making it difficult to differentiate between acute and chronic use. The analysis did not include race or ethnicity, which is important for understanding pain outcomes across different sociodemographic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who presented to a combined pediatric rheumatology/dermatology clinic (RDC) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 24% presented without a confirmed diagnosis, and only 41% received a diagnosis during their first clinic visit, results from a retrospective cohort study showed.

“This finding highlights the complexity of patients referred to this clinic,” the study’s first author, Jessica Crockett, a fourth-year medical student at UCSF, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session. “Integrated care models such as rheumatology/dermatology clinics (RDCs) have been shown to facilitate complete clinical evaluations, establish new or revised diagnoses, and streamline care for adult patients with complex autoimmune skin diseases. However, few pediatric RDCs exist nationwide, and data therefore is quite limited.”

To advance the understanding of pediatric RDC practice patterns, the influence of the care model on patient care, and professional development for trainees and clinicians, Ms. Crockett collaborated with senior author Kelly Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, and colleagues to evaluate a cohort of 71 patients who received care at the UCSF pediatric RDC. The clinic, which was launched in 2017, includes two dermatologists, two rheumatologists, trainees, a social worker, and a nurse. Team members participate in a preclinic conference to review patient data and images, discuss relevant literature, and develop an approach to each patient.

In a separate part of the study, the researchers distributed a survey to 17 pediatric dermatologists who participate in unique RDCs in North America. Respondents were asked to describe the variability of clinical operations, participants, administrative/clinical support, and educational value for participating physicians and trainees.

Of the 71 patients cared for at the UCSF pediatric RDC, 69% were female, 44% were White, 51% were aged 13-21 years, 42% were aged 3-12 years, and 7% were aged 0-11 years at their first clinic visit. The top four primary RDC diagnoses were linear morphea (33%), lupus (23%), psoriasis (13%), and juvenile dermatomyositis (10%).

Nearly one in four patients (17, or 24%) presented to the RDC without a confirmed diagnosis. A diagnosis was established at the first RDC visit for 7 of these 17 patients (41%). Among 54 patients who presented with an established diagnosis, the first RDC visit confirmed the diagnosis for 52 (96%) and revised it for 2 (4%). “Initial pediatric RDC evaluation significantly influenced patient care by confirming or revising preexisting diagnoses, rendering new diagnoses, and streamlining additional laboratory and imaging recommendations,” the researchers wrote in their poster.

The evaluation also resulted in modified disease management in the form of systemic medication changes or dosage adjustments as well as the initiation of novel therapies. For example, systemic medication changes were made during the first RDC visit in 34 of the 46 patients (74%) who were on systemic medication at presentation.

“Seeing complex patients together in real time allows specialists and other team members (social work, nursing, PT/OT, for example) to share ideas, communicate clearly to families, and efficiently develop recommendations,” Ms. Crockett said of the UCSF pediatric RDC. “Exposure to other specialists while caring for patients enhances medical knowledge, communication skills, and professional competency of faculty and trainees alike.”

In the survey portion of the study, each of the 17 dermatologists reported that the pediatric RDC is valuable for patient care, and 88% believed the RDC was a valuable use of their time. However, only 59% of respondents reported having administrative support, and only 29% had a dedicated clinic coordinator or navigator.

“We were surprised to find that only a quarter of pediatric RDCs incorporate an educational conference,” Dr. Cordoro told this news organization. “We have found that assembling the care team prior to seeing patients to review clinical data, discuss relevant literature, and define the clinical questions for each patient is an integral part of the clinical operation. The trainees are involved in these conference presentations, and it really enhances their understanding of the complex diagnoses we manage in this clinic and the issues faced by affected children and families. The preclinical conference increases efficiency, positively influences patient care, and supports professional development for all participants.”

The study was indirectly supported by a fellowship grant awarded to Ms. Crockett from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance. The researchers reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

More gastrointestinal and nervous symptom adverse events (AEs) are linked to apremilast than deucravacitinib, which is associated with more cutaneous AEs, according to a retrospective comparison using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the adverse events associated with apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor, and deucravacitinib, an oral tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, data were drawn from the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System database.
• The Medex_UIMA_1.8.3 system was used to standardize drug names, and MedDRA terminology was used to encode, categorize, and localize signals.
• AE event signals were grouped by skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders.

TAKEAWAY:

• There were 95,734 AE reports for apremilast and 760 AE reports for deucravacitinib, and AEs were found to be significant over time.
• The more common cutaneous AEs were psoriasis recurrence and acne (associated with apremilast) and skin burning and erythema (associated with deucravacitinib).
• The more common gastrointestinal AEs were diarrhea and nausea (apremilast) and mouth ulceration (deucravacitinib).
• Deucravacitinib-related pruritus and rash, as well as apremilast-related tension headache, were more common in women than men; deucravacitinib-related skin burning was more common in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The results “can help the doctors to choose the right treatment options based on the baseline characteristics of different patients,” said Yuanyuan Xu, a graduate student in the Department of Dermatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

SOURCE:

Mr. Xu presented the study as a poster at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2024 annual meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and cannot prove causality, and there were far fewer AE reports related to deucravacitinib, likely because the drug was introduced more recently.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no funding, and the authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

Age at psoriasis onset may influence the risk of developing PsA. Cheemalavagu and colleagues aimed to identify clinical factors associated with PsA development in patients with psoriasis. Using data from a registry that included 384 patients diagnosed with PsA either after or concurrently with their psoriasis diagnosis, they demonstrated that patients with psoriasis onset at the age of 42.6 vs 18.9 years had a 62% shorter time interval between psoriasis and PsA diagnoses and were ~4.6 times more likely to have a concurrent onset of PsA within 6 months of having psoriasis. Thus, older age at onset of psoriasis may indicate a higher risk of developing PsA. This result is consistent with the observation that psoriasis patients carrying the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) C*06:02 allele (associated with early-onset psoriasis) are at lower risk of developing PsA.

Most patients with PsA have psoriasis vulgaris. The differential risk of PsA with different psoriasis phenotypes is less well studied. Therefore, Gershater and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study that included patients with psoriasis vulgaris (n = 35,281), pustulosis palmoplantaris (n = 9639), or generalized pustular psoriasis (n = 2281), and who were propensity score–matched with an equal number of control individuals without psoriasis. They demonstrated that compared with control individuals without psoriasis, patients with psoriasis vulgaris had the highest risk for incident PsA (hazard ratio [HR] 87.7), followed by those with generalized pustular psoriasis (HR 26.8) and pustulosis palmoplantaris (HR 15.3). Thus, the study confirms the highest risk for PsA with psoriasis vulgaris, as well as the estimated risk for other, less common forms of psoriasis.

Finally, a cross-sectional study by Toledano and colleagues showed that PsA patients with a sedentary lifestyle (<90 min of physical activity per week) had more enthesitis, fatigue, pain, higher disease activity, greater disease impact, and lower functionality compared with those having a nonsedentary lifestyle. The study indicates that PsA patients would benefit from >90 minutes of physical activity per week.

Additional References

1. Davies NM, Holmes MV, Davey Smith G. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: A guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018;362:k601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k601 Source
2. Zhao H, Zhou Y, Wang Z, et al. Plasma proteins and psoriatic arthritis: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization study. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1417564. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1417564 Source

Age at psoriasis onset may influence the risk of developing PsA. Cheemalavagu and colleagues aimed to identify clinical factors associated with PsA development in patients with psoriasis. Using data from a registry that included 384 patients diagnosed with PsA either after or concurrently with their psoriasis diagnosis, they demonstrated that patients with psoriasis onset at the age of 42.6 vs 18.9 years had a 62% shorter time interval between psoriasis and PsA diagnoses and were ~4.6 times more likely to have a concurrent onset of PsA within 6 months of having psoriasis. Thus, older age at onset of psoriasis may indicate a higher risk of developing PsA. This result is consistent with the observation that psoriasis patients carrying the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) C*06:02 allele (associated with early-onset psoriasis) are at lower risk of developing PsA.

Most patients with PsA have psoriasis vulgaris. The differential risk of PsA with different psoriasis phenotypes is less well studied. Therefore, Gershater and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study that included patients with psoriasis vulgaris (n = 35,281), pustulosis palmoplantaris (n = 9639), or generalized pustular psoriasis (n = 2281), and who were propensity score–matched with an equal number of control individuals without psoriasis. They demonstrated that compared with control individuals without psoriasis, patients with psoriasis vulgaris had the highest risk for incident PsA (hazard ratio [HR] 87.7), followed by those with generalized pustular psoriasis (HR 26.8) and pustulosis palmoplantaris (HR 15.3). Thus, the study confirms the highest risk for PsA with psoriasis vulgaris, as well as the estimated risk for other, less common forms of psoriasis.

Finally, a cross-sectional study by Toledano and colleagues showed that PsA patients with a sedentary lifestyle (<90 min of physical activity per week) had more enthesitis, fatigue, pain, higher disease activity, greater disease impact, and lower functionality compared with those having a nonsedentary lifestyle. The study indicates that PsA patients would benefit from >90 minutes of physical activity per week.

Additional References

1. Davies NM, Holmes MV, Davey Smith G. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: A guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018;362:k601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k601 Source
2. Zhao H, Zhou Y, Wang Z, et al. Plasma proteins and psoriatic arthritis: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization study. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1417564. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1417564 Source

Age at psoriasis onset may influence the risk of developing PsA. Cheemalavagu and colleagues aimed to identify clinical factors associated with PsA development in patients with psoriasis. Using data from a registry that included 384 patients diagnosed with PsA either after or concurrently with their psoriasis diagnosis, they demonstrated that patients with psoriasis onset at the age of 42.6 vs 18.9 years had a 62% shorter time interval between psoriasis and PsA diagnoses and were ~4.6 times more likely to have a concurrent onset of PsA within 6 months of having psoriasis. Thus, older age at onset of psoriasis may indicate a higher risk of developing PsA. This result is consistent with the observation that psoriasis patients carrying the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) C*06:02 allele (associated with early-onset psoriasis) are at lower risk of developing PsA.

Most patients with PsA have psoriasis vulgaris. The differential risk of PsA with different psoriasis phenotypes is less well studied. Therefore, Gershater and colleagues conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study that included patients with psoriasis vulgaris (n = 35,281), pustulosis palmoplantaris (n = 9639), or generalized pustular psoriasis (n = 2281), and who were propensity score–matched with an equal number of control individuals without psoriasis. They demonstrated that compared with control individuals without psoriasis, patients with psoriasis vulgaris had the highest risk for incident PsA (hazard ratio [HR] 87.7), followed by those with generalized pustular psoriasis (HR 26.8) and pustulosis palmoplantaris (HR 15.3). Thus, the study confirms the highest risk for PsA with psoriasis vulgaris, as well as the estimated risk for other, less common forms of psoriasis.

Finally, a cross-sectional study by Toledano and colleagues showed that PsA patients with a sedentary lifestyle (<90 min of physical activity per week) had more enthesitis, fatigue, pain, higher disease activity, greater disease impact, and lower functionality compared with those having a nonsedentary lifestyle. The study indicates that PsA patients would benefit from >90 minutes of physical activity per week.

Additional References

1. Davies NM, Holmes MV, Davey Smith G. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: A guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ. 2018;362:k601. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k601 Source
2. Zhao H, Zhou Y, Wang Z, et al. Plasma proteins and psoriatic arthritis: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization study. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1417564. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1417564 Source

Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible

GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.

Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.

Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.

Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.

The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.

EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.

For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.

EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
 

Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground

While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.

Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.

Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.

The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.

Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.

Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.

One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”

Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.

Debating the Toxicity Threshold

Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.

Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.

Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Tapering Options Across Diseases

Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.

In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.

For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.

However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”

All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.

A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.

For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.

Hospital for Special Surgery

What to Consider for AI Symptoms

Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.

Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.

Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.

Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible

GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.

Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.

Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.

Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.

The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.

EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.

For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.

EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
 

Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground

While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.

Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.

Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.

The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.

Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.

Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.

One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”

Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.

Debating the Toxicity Threshold

Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.

Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.

Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Tapering Options Across Diseases

Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.

In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.

For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.

However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”

All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.

A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.

For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.

Hospital for Special Surgery

What to Consider for AI Symptoms

Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.

Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.

Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.

Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Now, 75 years after the first presentations were made on the “sensational” effects of cortisone in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), glucocorticoids (GCs) are still highly relevant and widely used in the management of RA and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

“It makes me smile because this is such an old drug, and we need it still so much. It still hasn’t been replaced,” Josef S. Smolen, MD, observed at annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

At low doses, GCs are highly effective as anti-inflammatory and anti-destructive agents in RA and many other diseases, said Dr. Smolen, a rheumatologist and immunologist and professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

But even after all this time, the mechanisms that lead to efficacy vs toxicity have yet to be clarified. “Such separation may provide further insights into future treatment options,” said Dr. Smolen.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

Societies Agree: Discontinue as Fast as Possible

GCs have been associated with a long list of adverse events, most notably Cushing syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, myopathy, peptic ulcer, adrenal insufficiency (AI), infections, mood disorders, ophthalmologic disorders such as cataracts, skin disorders, menstrual septic necrosis, and pancreatitis.

Dose matters, Dr. Smolen said, citing studies that found that cumulative GC doses of 1000 or 1100 mg increase risks. One study by German researchers found that doses above 10 mg/d significantly raised the hazard ratio for death.

Because high disease activity is also associated with an equally high mortality risk, “we have to balance this out: Active disease vs glucocorticoid use, especially in countries that have less access to modern therapies than we have in the more affluent Western regions,” Dr. Smolen said.

Rheumatology societies generally agree that clinicians should try to minimize GC use or eventually discontinue the therapy.

The American College of Rheumatology recommends not using GCs as part of the first-line treatment of RA. “And if you want to use [them], you should do that for less than 3 months, taper and discontinue as fast as possible, and use the lowest dose possible,” Dr. Adami said.

EULAR’s recommendation is more nuanced in that it allows for a lower dose but gives physicians more choice in how they want to handle GCs, Dr. Adami said. The task force added that all patients should try to taper down or discontinue as fast as possible, he said.

For GCs in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus, a EULAR task force recommended that the type and severity of organ involvement should determine dose, with a long-term goal of maintaining the dose < 5 mg/d or possibly withdrawing it.

EULAR also recommends GC bridging when initiating or changing conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. This effectively dismisses the use of GCs when using biologic DMARDs or targeted synthetic DMARDs. As a bridging therapy, EULAR recommends either a single parenteral dose of GC or a predefined tapering or discontinuation scheme within 3 months, when starting an oral GC.
 

Low-Dose Approach Gains Ground

While saying he’d be the first physician to eliminate GCs whenever possible, Dr. Buttgereit made the case before the EULAR Congress that GCs in low doses could still play a role in treatment.

Many physicians believe that very low doses between 2 and 4 mg/d are a realistic therapy option for RA, he said, adding that a mean daily usage < 5 mg could be used over a longer period with relatively low risk.

Several studies he coauthored tested the 5-mg approach. The GLORIA trial compared 5 mg/d prednisolone and placebo in 451 patients aged 65 years and older with active RA over the course of 2 years. The researchers found that patients on prednisolone had a mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) that was 0.37 points lower and mean joint damage score that was 1.7 points lower than those of patients on placebo, suggesting that the GC had long-term benefits in these patients with RA.

The tradeoff was a 24% increase in the risk of having at least one adverse event of special interest, but most of these events were non-severe infections, Dr. Buttgereit said.

Another study, the SEMIRA trial, assigned 128 patients to a continued regimen of prednisone 5 mg/d for 24 weeks. Another group of 131 patients received a tapered-prednisone regimen. All patients received tocilizumab 162 mg with or without csDMARDs, maintained at stable doses.

Patients in the first cohort achieved superior disease activity control than those in the tapered regimen group. “The side effects showed that in the tapering prednisone group, there were more treatment-emergent adverse effects in this double-blind trial as compared to the continued prednisone group,” Dr. Buttgereit said.

One limitation of the SEMIRA trial was that it studied the effect of tocilizumab as a GC-sparing agent, and it didn’t consider using a tumor necrosis factor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, which might have a more potent effect on pain and GC dose reduction, Dr. Adami said. “Why do we need to use glucocorticoids if we know they might be detrimental, if we know there might be some other option in our armamentarium?”

Other studies have shown that low-dose GC protocols can be used with standard treatment, according to Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine and director of the Vasculitis Center at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Examples of this are the LoVAS and PEXIVAS studies for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated [ANCA] vasculitis. This has been highlighted in existing treatment recommendations for ANCA vasculitis and systemic lupus erythematosus nephritis,” Dr. Sattui said.

Debating the Toxicity Threshold

Are low GC dosages significantly associated with adverse events like mortality, cardiovascular, or diabetes risk? It depends on who you ask.

Much of the toxicity data on GCs come from inadequately powered or controlled studies and often refer to doses that currently are considered too high, Dr. Buttgereit said. His presentation highlighted a study from Hong Kong, a time-varying analysis of GC dose and incident risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in more than 12,000 patients with RA. Researchers found that GC regimens ≥ 5 mg/d significantly increased the risk for MACE. Comparatively, doses below this threshold did not confer excessive risk, he said.

Low-dose GCs are lesser toxic than high-dose GCs, noted Joan Merrill, MD, a professor with the Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Research Program at The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. “There may be less weight gain, less chance of acne, and less risk for all the slower, more organ-threatening side effects.”

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Tapering Options Across Diseases

Rheumatologists in the field continue to navigate GC-tapering options and treatment combinations that reduce the cumulative use of GCs over time, finding their own solutions based on the conditions they treat.

In his EULAR presentation, Dr. Buttgereit suggested that current therapeutic approaches for RA may be too narrow when they don’t consider the possibility of including very low doses of GCs.

For RA, “why shouldn’t we not do a combination of something like methotrexate plus a JAK inhibitor or a biological,” plus a very low dose of GCs < 5 mg/d, he asked.

However, Dr. Adami said he generally avoids GCs if RA disease activity is not severe (based on DAS28) and if the patient has a visual analog scale pain score < 7. “Nonetheless, even in patients with more severe disease, I would avoid GCs for more than 3 months. Usually, 1 month of steroids, tapered rapidly and discontinued.”

All patients should receive an appropriate treat-to-target strategy with csDMARDs and biologics if needed, he added.

A patient coming to clinic with difficult-to-treat RA who chronically uses GCs deserves special attention. The priority is bone protection with an anti-osteoporosis medication. “I found that JAK inhibitors, in some cases, help with the discontinuation of steroids, especially in those with residual pain. Therefore, I would think of switching medication,” Dr. Adami said.

For polymyalgia rheumatica, most clinicians will likely try to taper GCs around 52 weeks, similar to ACR/EULAR guidelines, according to Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma and Vasculitis Program at Hospital for Special Surgery, New York City.

Hospital for Special Surgery

What to Consider for AI Symptoms

Clinicians also need to address AI in patients who are coming off GCs, Dr. Sattui said. He advised that symptoms suggestive of AI, including malaise, fatigue, nausea, and muscle and/or joint pain, should guide testing.

Even in the absence of symptoms, clinicians should consider assessing patients who have been on high doses for prolonged periods or obese or older adults who might be at a high risk for AI. “Signs to consider include weight loss, hypotension, or orthostatism,” he said.

Differentiating between AI symptoms and symptoms from the underlying disease can be a challenge. This requires a physical exam and workup, including morning serum cortisol. Collaboration with endocrinology colleagues and other treating providers is important, as well as patient education of symptoms and monitoring for possible adjustments in treating AI and other acute diseases, he said.

Dr. Smolen received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galapagos, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Adami received speaker fees and/or was a consultant for Galapagos, Theramex, Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiogen, and Pfizer. Dr. Buttgereit’s disclosures included AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal, Horizon Therapeutics, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Merrill had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Spiera has been a consultant for Roche-Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, ChemoCentryx, Novartis, Galderma, Cytori, AstraZeneca, Amgen, and AbbVie and received research grant support from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytori, ChemoCentryx, Corbus, Novartis, Amgen, and AbbVie. Dr. Sattui reported receiving research support from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline (clinical trials), receiving consulting fees from Sanofi (funds toward research support), serving on advisory boards for Sanofi and Amgen (funds toward research support), and receiving speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi (funds toward research support).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

SEATTLE — Tissue resident memory (TRM) T cells are a hot topic lately in the treatment of psoriasis. These cells reside in the skin and other tissues and promote the inflammatory response, likely contributing to psoriasis symptoms. In fact, flare-ups often recur at the same site, a phenomenon that might be driven by these resident memory cells, according to Liv Eidsmo, MD, PhD.

This has led to their use as biomarkers in clinical trials for new therapies, but TRM T cells have a complex biology that is far from fully understood, Dr. Eidsmo said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. “With time, we’re understanding that the regulation of the functionality is more complicated than we thought, so following these cells as a positive outcome of a clinical trial is a little bit premature,” said Dr. Eidsmo, who is a consultant dermatologist at the University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Treatment strategies focus on inhibition of interleukin (IL)-23, which is an activator of TRM T cells and probably keeps them alive, according to Dr. Eidsmo. “The hope is that these cells can be silenced by IL-23 inhibition, which is a great idea, and it probably works. It’s just a matter of what is the readout of long-term remission, because the big challenge in the clinical world is when do we stop these expensive biological treatments? When can we feel secure that patients are in deep remission?” she asked.

TRM cells are also far from the only immune cells involved in psoriasis. Others include keratinocytes, Langerhans cells, and fibroblasts. Dr. Eidsmo referenced a recent spatial analysis that used single-cell and spatial RNA sequencing to identify the localization of specific cell populations and inflammatory pathways within psoriasis lesions and epidermal compartments as well as also suggested crosstalk links between cell types. Epigenetic changes in stem cells may also maintain a lower threshold for tissue inflammation.

Dr. Eidsmo advised caution in eliminating TRM T cells, which play a key role in protecting against melanoma and other cancers, especially later in life. “We don’t want to get rid of them. We want to have the right balance.”

She noted a study in her own lab that mapped TRM T cells in healthy epidermis and found that they could be renewed from both circulating precursors and cells within the epidermis. “So getting rid of the mature TRM T cells will most likely just lead to a new generation of the same subset.”

Other data show that there are a wide range of subsets of TRM T cells, and she recommended focusing on the functionality of TRM T cells rather than sheer numbers. “This is something we’re working on now: Can we change the functionality [of TRM T cells], rather than eradicate them and hope for the best in the next generation? Can we change the functionality of the T cells we already have in the skin?”

There is also epigenetic data in TRM T cells, keratinocytes, stem cells, and other cells thus suggesting complexity and plasticity in the system that remains poorly understood. 

Taken together, the research is at too early of a stage to be clinically useful, said Dr. Eidsmo. “We need to go back to the drawing board and just realize what we need to measure, and with the new techniques coming out, maybe spatial [measurement] at a high resolution, we can find biomarkers that better dictate the future of this. Be a little bit wary when you read the outcomes from the clinical trials that are ongoing, because right now, it’s a bit of a race between different biologics. These cells are used as a readout of efficacy of the treatments, and we’re not quite there yet.”

During the Q&A session after the presentation, one audience member asked about the heterogeneity of cells found within the skin of patients with psoriasis and pointed out that many proinflammatory cells likely play a role in tumor control. Dr. Eidsmo responded that her group’s analysis of a large database of patients with metastatic melanoma found that a factor that is important to the development of TRM T cells was strongly correlated to survival in patients with metastatic melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade. “So we really don’t want to eradicate them,” she said.

Also during the Q&A, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, commented about the need to understand the previous events that drove the creation of memory T cells. “For me, the question is about the hierarchy, the primacy of what really drives the memory. In the infectious world, we’re trained to think [that memory responses] are T cell driven memory, but I wonder whether you have an idea of whether the T cell is responding to other memories, particularly in the stroma. Because certainly in the arthropathies, we have really good evidence now of epigenetic change in the synovial stroma and subsets,” said Dr. McInnes, who is director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.

Dr. Eidsmo responded that she believes responses are different among different individuals. “We know too little about how these two systems interact with one another. I think the TRM T cells are very good at amplifying the stroma to recruit cells in. I think we need to think of two-step therapies. You need to normalize this [stromal] environment. How you can do that, I don’t know.”

Dr. McInnes agreed. “As a myeloid doctor, I strongly believe that perpetuators are innate and the adaptive is following on. But how do we test that? That’s really hard,” he said. 

Dr. Eidsmo did not list any disclosures. Dr. McInnes has financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Compugen, Cabaletta, Causeway, Dextera, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, Versus Arthritis, MRC, and UCB. 

Key clinical point: Levels of certain proteins found in the blood plasma affected the risk for development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and could serve as potential therapeutic targets for the condition.

Major finding: Apolipoprotein F increased the risk for PsA by 60% (odds ratio [OR] 1.69; P_FDR < .001), whereas interleukin-10 reduced the risk for PsA by 40% (OR 0.60; P_FDR = .034). Other proteins associated with an increased risk for PsA included tumor necrosis factor, V-type proton ATPase subunit G 2, receptor-type tyrosine protein phosphatase F, and septin-8.

Study details: This two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis included the data of 3537 patients with PsA and 262,844 control individuals without PsA from the FinnGen study and the data of 1837 unique plasma proteins from a genome-wide association study within the UK Biobank Pharma Proteomics Project.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhao H, Zhou Y, Wang Z, Zhang X, Chen L, Hong Z. Plasma proteins and psoriatic arthritis: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization study. Front Immunol. 15:1417564 (July 3). Doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1417564 Source

Key clinical point: Levels of certain proteins found in the blood plasma affected the risk for development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and could serve as potential therapeutic targets for the condition.

Major finding: Apolipoprotein F increased the risk for PsA by 60% (odds ratio [OR] 1.69; P_FDR < .001), whereas interleukin-10 reduced the risk for PsA by 40% (OR 0.60; P_FDR = .034). Other proteins associated with an increased risk for PsA included tumor necrosis factor, V-type proton ATPase subunit G 2, receptor-type tyrosine protein phosphatase F, and septin-8.

Study details: This two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis included the data of 3537 patients with PsA and 262,844 control individuals without PsA from the FinnGen study and the data of 1837 unique plasma proteins from a genome-wide association study within the UK Biobank Pharma Proteomics Project.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhao H, Zhou Y, Wang Z, Zhang X, Chen L, Hong Z. Plasma proteins and psoriatic arthritis: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization study. Front Immunol. 15:1417564 (July 3). Doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1417564 Source

Key clinical point: Levels of certain proteins found in the blood plasma affected the risk for development of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and could serve as potential therapeutic targets for the condition.

Major finding: Apolipoprotein F increased the risk for PsA by 60% (odds ratio [OR] 1.69; P_FDR < .001), whereas interleukin-10 reduced the risk for PsA by 40% (OR 0.60; P_FDR = .034). Other proteins associated with an increased risk for PsA included tumor necrosis factor, V-type proton ATPase subunit G 2, receptor-type tyrosine protein phosphatase F, and septin-8.

Study details: This two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis included the data of 3537 patients with PsA and 262,844 control individuals without PsA from the FinnGen study and the data of 1837 unique plasma proteins from a genome-wide association study within the UK Biobank Pharma Proteomics Project.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhao H, Zhou Y, Wang Z, Zhang X, Chen L, Hong Z. Plasma proteins and psoriatic arthritis: A proteome-wide Mendelian randomization study. Front Immunol. 15:1417564 (July 3). Doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1417564 Source

Key clinical point: The presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and smoking history increased the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis; however, T2D seemed to have a greater impact than smoking history in increasing incidence rate of PsA.

Major finding: The risk for PsA was significantly higher in patients with psoriasis who did vs did not have T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20) and in those with vs without smoking history (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17). However, the risk was not significant in patients with psoriasis and T2D with vs without smoking history (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.92-1.20).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included patients with psoriasis with or without T2D (n = 42,315 each), those with or without smoking history (n = 74,046 each), and those with T2D with or without smoking history (n = 13,065 each).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Chung Shan Medical University Hospital research project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Huo A-P, Liao P-L, Leong P-Y, Wei JC-C. From psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis: Epidemiological insights from a retrospective cohort study of 74,046 patients. Front Med. 2024;11:1419722 (June 26). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1419722 Source

Key clinical point: The presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and smoking history increased the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis; however, T2D seemed to have a greater impact than smoking history in increasing incidence rate of PsA.

Major finding: The risk for PsA was significantly higher in patients with psoriasis who did vs did not have T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20) and in those with vs without smoking history (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17). However, the risk was not significant in patients with psoriasis and T2D with vs without smoking history (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.92-1.20).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included patients with psoriasis with or without T2D (n = 42,315 each), those with or without smoking history (n = 74,046 each), and those with T2D with or without smoking history (n = 13,065 each).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Chung Shan Medical University Hospital research project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Huo A-P, Liao P-L, Leong P-Y, Wei JC-C. From psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis: Epidemiological insights from a retrospective cohort study of 74,046 patients. Front Med. 2024;11:1419722 (June 26). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1419722 Source

Key clinical point: The presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and smoking history increased the risk for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis; however, T2D seemed to have a greater impact than smoking history in increasing incidence rate of PsA.

Major finding: The risk for PsA was significantly higher in patients with psoriasis who did vs did not have T2D (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20) and in those with vs without smoking history (HR 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17). However, the risk was not significant in patients with psoriasis and T2D with vs without smoking history (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.92-1.20).

Study details: This retrospective cohort study included patients with psoriasis with or without T2D (n = 42,315 each), those with or without smoking history (n = 74,046 each), and those with T2D with or without smoking history (n = 13,065 each).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Chung Shan Medical University Hospital research project. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Huo A-P, Liao P-L, Leong P-Y, Wei JC-C. From psoriasis to psoriatic arthritis: Epidemiological insights from a retrospective cohort study of 74,046 patients. Front Med. 2024;11:1419722 (June 26). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1419722 Source