User login
Jeff Evans has been editor of Rheumatology News/MDedge Rheumatology and the EULAR Congress News since 2013. He started at Frontline Medical Communications in 2001 and was a reporter for 8 years before serving as editor of Clinical Neurology News and World Neurology, and briefly as editor of GI & Hepatology News. He graduated cum laude from Cornell University (New York) with a BA in biological sciences, concentrating in neurobiology and behavior.
Cognitive impairment predicts worsening multiple sclerosis
Cognitive impairment in individuals at the time of multiple sclerosis diagnosis imparts a significantly higher risk for disability progression, transition to secondary progressive disease, and cortical thinning, according to results from a retrospective, 8-year, longitudinal observational study.
The results, note first author Marco Pitteri, PhD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and his colleagues, “confirm and extend previous studies showing that cognitive impairment could represent a clinical marker of more aggressive gray matter pathology,” and also identified cortical thinning as a neuroimaging correlate of cognitive impairment that was detected only at follow-up between the cognitively impaired and cognitively normal patients who were otherwise similar at baseline.
The study involved 78 consecutive patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis who underwent neurologic exams during 2015 at a single center in Italy. They all had a cognitive assessment and an MRI scan at the time of diagnosis and at least 8 years of clinical follow-up, including neurologic examination every 6 months. At the time of enrollment into the study, most patients were taking immunomodulatory therapy: 38 were treated with interferon beta-1a, 14 with interferon beta-1b, 15 with glatiramer acetate, and 6 with azathioprine, and 5 were untreated.
At baseline, 39 cognitively normal patients had a mean age of about 36 years, none had conversion to secondary progressive disease, and just 15% had disability progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Cortical thickness changed a mean of 3.6%.
The 26 patients with mild cognitive impairment (classified as failure of up to two tests on the Brief Repeatable Battery) were 38 years old at baseline, and only 4 transitioned to secondary progressive disease. Just over half experienced EDSS progression (an average of 0.85 points) and cortical thickness changed by an average of 17%.
The 13 remaining patients with severe cognitive impairment at baseline (three or more failed tests) were about 44 years of age on average and nearly all (92%) experienced EDSS progression, which averaged 1.31 points. Cortical thickness also changed a mean of 34%. Relapsing disease converted to secondary progressive disease in a total of six patients with severe cognitive impairment.
Patients with severe cognitive impairment at baseline had more severe white matter lesion volume at baseline than did others, but there was no difference in the accumulation of white matter lesions during follow-up between patients with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and severe cognitive impairment, which corroborates previous studies. However, the predictive ability of early cognitive impairment in identifying patients with disability progression on the EDSS and cortical thinning “is in line with several previous longitudinal studies showing a strong relationship between gray matter damage and the development of cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2952-61 and Neurology. 2013 Nov 12;81[20]:1759-67).
Although the administration of neuropsychological batteries is time consuming and requires expertise, the authors argued that their results “underline the need of using extended screening neuropsychological batteries instead of brief screening batteries, at least at the time of diagnosis, in order to increase the probability to detect even mild forms of cognitive impairment as early as possible in the disease course.”
Read the full paper online in Multiple Sclerosis (2016 Aug 15. doi: 10.1177/1352458516665496).
Cognitive impairment in individuals at the time of multiple sclerosis diagnosis imparts a significantly higher risk for disability progression, transition to secondary progressive disease, and cortical thinning, according to results from a retrospective, 8-year, longitudinal observational study.
The results, note first author Marco Pitteri, PhD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and his colleagues, “confirm and extend previous studies showing that cognitive impairment could represent a clinical marker of more aggressive gray matter pathology,” and also identified cortical thinning as a neuroimaging correlate of cognitive impairment that was detected only at follow-up between the cognitively impaired and cognitively normal patients who were otherwise similar at baseline.
The study involved 78 consecutive patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis who underwent neurologic exams during 2015 at a single center in Italy. They all had a cognitive assessment and an MRI scan at the time of diagnosis and at least 8 years of clinical follow-up, including neurologic examination every 6 months. At the time of enrollment into the study, most patients were taking immunomodulatory therapy: 38 were treated with interferon beta-1a, 14 with interferon beta-1b, 15 with glatiramer acetate, and 6 with azathioprine, and 5 were untreated.
At baseline, 39 cognitively normal patients had a mean age of about 36 years, none had conversion to secondary progressive disease, and just 15% had disability progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Cortical thickness changed a mean of 3.6%.
The 26 patients with mild cognitive impairment (classified as failure of up to two tests on the Brief Repeatable Battery) were 38 years old at baseline, and only 4 transitioned to secondary progressive disease. Just over half experienced EDSS progression (an average of 0.85 points) and cortical thickness changed by an average of 17%.
The 13 remaining patients with severe cognitive impairment at baseline (three or more failed tests) were about 44 years of age on average and nearly all (92%) experienced EDSS progression, which averaged 1.31 points. Cortical thickness also changed a mean of 34%. Relapsing disease converted to secondary progressive disease in a total of six patients with severe cognitive impairment.
Patients with severe cognitive impairment at baseline had more severe white matter lesion volume at baseline than did others, but there was no difference in the accumulation of white matter lesions during follow-up between patients with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and severe cognitive impairment, which corroborates previous studies. However, the predictive ability of early cognitive impairment in identifying patients with disability progression on the EDSS and cortical thinning “is in line with several previous longitudinal studies showing a strong relationship between gray matter damage and the development of cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2952-61 and Neurology. 2013 Nov 12;81[20]:1759-67).
Although the administration of neuropsychological batteries is time consuming and requires expertise, the authors argued that their results “underline the need of using extended screening neuropsychological batteries instead of brief screening batteries, at least at the time of diagnosis, in order to increase the probability to detect even mild forms of cognitive impairment as early as possible in the disease course.”
Read the full paper online in Multiple Sclerosis (2016 Aug 15. doi: 10.1177/1352458516665496).
Cognitive impairment in individuals at the time of multiple sclerosis diagnosis imparts a significantly higher risk for disability progression, transition to secondary progressive disease, and cortical thinning, according to results from a retrospective, 8-year, longitudinal observational study.
The results, note first author Marco Pitteri, PhD, of the University of Verona (Italy) and his colleagues, “confirm and extend previous studies showing that cognitive impairment could represent a clinical marker of more aggressive gray matter pathology,” and also identified cortical thinning as a neuroimaging correlate of cognitive impairment that was detected only at follow-up between the cognitively impaired and cognitively normal patients who were otherwise similar at baseline.
The study involved 78 consecutive patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis who underwent neurologic exams during 2015 at a single center in Italy. They all had a cognitive assessment and an MRI scan at the time of diagnosis and at least 8 years of clinical follow-up, including neurologic examination every 6 months. At the time of enrollment into the study, most patients were taking immunomodulatory therapy: 38 were treated with interferon beta-1a, 14 with interferon beta-1b, 15 with glatiramer acetate, and 6 with azathioprine, and 5 were untreated.
At baseline, 39 cognitively normal patients had a mean age of about 36 years, none had conversion to secondary progressive disease, and just 15% had disability progression on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Cortical thickness changed a mean of 3.6%.
The 26 patients with mild cognitive impairment (classified as failure of up to two tests on the Brief Repeatable Battery) were 38 years old at baseline, and only 4 transitioned to secondary progressive disease. Just over half experienced EDSS progression (an average of 0.85 points) and cortical thickness changed by an average of 17%.
The 13 remaining patients with severe cognitive impairment at baseline (three or more failed tests) were about 44 years of age on average and nearly all (92%) experienced EDSS progression, which averaged 1.31 points. Cortical thickness also changed a mean of 34%. Relapsing disease converted to secondary progressive disease in a total of six patients with severe cognitive impairment.
Patients with severe cognitive impairment at baseline had more severe white matter lesion volume at baseline than did others, but there was no difference in the accumulation of white matter lesions during follow-up between patients with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and severe cognitive impairment, which corroborates previous studies. However, the predictive ability of early cognitive impairment in identifying patients with disability progression on the EDSS and cortical thinning “is in line with several previous longitudinal studies showing a strong relationship between gray matter damage and the development of cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2952-61 and Neurology. 2013 Nov 12;81[20]:1759-67).
Although the administration of neuropsychological batteries is time consuming and requires expertise, the authors argued that their results “underline the need of using extended screening neuropsychological batteries instead of brief screening batteries, at least at the time of diagnosis, in order to increase the probability to detect even mild forms of cognitive impairment as early as possible in the disease course.”
Read the full paper online in Multiple Sclerosis (2016 Aug 15. doi: 10.1177/1352458516665496).
FROM MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
Abatacept fails to provide benefit in relapsing-remitting MS
Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II ACCLAIM study indicate that abatacept has no effect on reducing the number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, according to Samia J. Khoury, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her colleagues from the Immune Tolerance Network.
In the ACCLAIM (A Cooperative Clinical Study of Abatacept in Multiple Sclerosis) study, 42 patients who received abatacept (Orencia) developed a mean of 0.43 new gadolinium-enhancing lesions by week 24, compared with 1.66 for 20 placebo-treated patients (P = .87). None of the secondary MRI endpoints (lesion volume change and percent brain volume change) and clinical endpoints (changes in Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score, Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS], and annualized relapse rate) at 24 weeks differed significantly between the groups. The rate of patients who met criteria for no evidence of disease activity or its components (no EDSS progression, no clinical exacerbations, and no new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesion) from week 8 and before week 28 did not differ between the groups.
During a 28-week extension phase in which the groups switched treatments, patients who switched from abatacept to placebo had a greater number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions than did those who switched from placebo to abatacept (1.25 vs. 0.60, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
Abatacept, which is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, is a CTLA4 immunoglobulin fusion protein that inhibits the activation of T lymphocytes by targeting the adaptive arm of the immune system by blocking the CD28-B7 costimulatory pathway. It was thought to have potential to reduce immune-mediated disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis because T lymphocytes have been implicated in its pathogenesis.
The investigators closed enrollment for the trial early because of slow accrual. The 65 total patients who enrolled in the trial were about half of the number designated in the trial design (n = 123) in order to demonstrate a treatment effect of 50% reduction of new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions.
The number of participants “was too small to demonstrate efficacy at the 50% level,” the investigators wrote, and “low numbers of new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions in the study population reduced the chances of demonstrating a treatment effect for abatacept.”
A prior phase II trial of abatacept that was stopped early due to safety events yielded inconclusive results because of an imbalance in the baseline disease activity of participants.
Read the full report online in Multiple Sclerosis Journal (Mult Scler J. 2016 Aug 1. doi: 10.1177/1352458516662727).
Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II ACCLAIM study indicate that abatacept has no effect on reducing the number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, according to Samia J. Khoury, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her colleagues from the Immune Tolerance Network.
In the ACCLAIM (A Cooperative Clinical Study of Abatacept in Multiple Sclerosis) study, 42 patients who received abatacept (Orencia) developed a mean of 0.43 new gadolinium-enhancing lesions by week 24, compared with 1.66 for 20 placebo-treated patients (P = .87). None of the secondary MRI endpoints (lesion volume change and percent brain volume change) and clinical endpoints (changes in Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score, Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS], and annualized relapse rate) at 24 weeks differed significantly between the groups. The rate of patients who met criteria for no evidence of disease activity or its components (no EDSS progression, no clinical exacerbations, and no new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesion) from week 8 and before week 28 did not differ between the groups.
During a 28-week extension phase in which the groups switched treatments, patients who switched from abatacept to placebo had a greater number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions than did those who switched from placebo to abatacept (1.25 vs. 0.60, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
Abatacept, which is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, is a CTLA4 immunoglobulin fusion protein that inhibits the activation of T lymphocytes by targeting the adaptive arm of the immune system by blocking the CD28-B7 costimulatory pathway. It was thought to have potential to reduce immune-mediated disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis because T lymphocytes have been implicated in its pathogenesis.
The investigators closed enrollment for the trial early because of slow accrual. The 65 total patients who enrolled in the trial were about half of the number designated in the trial design (n = 123) in order to demonstrate a treatment effect of 50% reduction of new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions.
The number of participants “was too small to demonstrate efficacy at the 50% level,” the investigators wrote, and “low numbers of new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions in the study population reduced the chances of demonstrating a treatment effect for abatacept.”
A prior phase II trial of abatacept that was stopped early due to safety events yielded inconclusive results because of an imbalance in the baseline disease activity of participants.
Read the full report online in Multiple Sclerosis Journal (Mult Scler J. 2016 Aug 1. doi: 10.1177/1352458516662727).
Results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II ACCLAIM study indicate that abatacept has no effect on reducing the number of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions on MRI in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, according to Samia J. Khoury, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and her colleagues from the Immune Tolerance Network.
In the ACCLAIM (A Cooperative Clinical Study of Abatacept in Multiple Sclerosis) study, 42 patients who received abatacept (Orencia) developed a mean of 0.43 new gadolinium-enhancing lesions by week 24, compared with 1.66 for 20 placebo-treated patients (P = .87). None of the secondary MRI endpoints (lesion volume change and percent brain volume change) and clinical endpoints (changes in Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score, Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS], and annualized relapse rate) at 24 weeks differed significantly between the groups. The rate of patients who met criteria for no evidence of disease activity or its components (no EDSS progression, no clinical exacerbations, and no new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesion) from week 8 and before week 28 did not differ between the groups.
During a 28-week extension phase in which the groups switched treatments, patients who switched from abatacept to placebo had a greater number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions than did those who switched from placebo to abatacept (1.25 vs. 0.60, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant.
Abatacept, which is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, is a CTLA4 immunoglobulin fusion protein that inhibits the activation of T lymphocytes by targeting the adaptive arm of the immune system by blocking the CD28-B7 costimulatory pathway. It was thought to have potential to reduce immune-mediated disease activity in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis because T lymphocytes have been implicated in its pathogenesis.
The investigators closed enrollment for the trial early because of slow accrual. The 65 total patients who enrolled in the trial were about half of the number designated in the trial design (n = 123) in order to demonstrate a treatment effect of 50% reduction of new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions.
The number of participants “was too small to demonstrate efficacy at the 50% level,” the investigators wrote, and “low numbers of new gadolinium-enhancing MRI lesions in the study population reduced the chances of demonstrating a treatment effect for abatacept.”
A prior phase II trial of abatacept that was stopped early due to safety events yielded inconclusive results because of an imbalance in the baseline disease activity of participants.
Read the full report online in Multiple Sclerosis Journal (Mult Scler J. 2016 Aug 1. doi: 10.1177/1352458516662727).
FROM MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Abatacept autoinjector approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis
An autoinjector for subcutaneously administering abatacept (Orencia) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, making it the third delivery method available for patients to use the biologic.
Abatacept is also available for intravenous infusion and subcutaneous administration with a prefilled syringe. With a single button push, the new Orencia ClickJect autoinjector delivers 125 mg of the drug over the course of 15 seconds and also confirms the injection. The autoinjector’s design is meant to allow patients with rheumatoid arthritis to firmly hold, operate, and control the device, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Although abatacept is approved to treat polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients aged 6 years and older, subcutaneous formulations of the drug have not been studied in patients younger than 18 years.
An autoinjector for subcutaneously administering abatacept (Orencia) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, making it the third delivery method available for patients to use the biologic.
Abatacept is also available for intravenous infusion and subcutaneous administration with a prefilled syringe. With a single button push, the new Orencia ClickJect autoinjector delivers 125 mg of the drug over the course of 15 seconds and also confirms the injection. The autoinjector’s design is meant to allow patients with rheumatoid arthritis to firmly hold, operate, and control the device, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Although abatacept is approved to treat polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients aged 6 years and older, subcutaneous formulations of the drug have not been studied in patients younger than 18 years.
An autoinjector for subcutaneously administering abatacept (Orencia) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, making it the third delivery method available for patients to use the biologic.
Abatacept is also available for intravenous infusion and subcutaneous administration with a prefilled syringe. With a single button push, the new Orencia ClickJect autoinjector delivers 125 mg of the drug over the course of 15 seconds and also confirms the injection. The autoinjector’s design is meant to allow patients with rheumatoid arthritis to firmly hold, operate, and control the device, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Although abatacept is approved to treat polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients aged 6 years and older, subcutaneous formulations of the drug have not been studied in patients younger than 18 years.
Focused-ultrasound device approved to treat essential tremor
A device that uses transcranial focused ultrasound to destroy the MRI-identified pathologic area of the thalamus in essential tremor patients became the first of its kind to receive Food and Drug Administration approval for use in patients whose condition has been refractory to medications such as beta-blockers or anticonvulsant drugs.
In patients who have undergone evaluation by CT and MRI to determine their suitability for the procedure, the Exablate Neuro device delivers focused ultrasound at incrementally higher energies until patients achieve a reduction of tremor. Patients are awake and responsive during the entire treatment.
“As with other treatments for essential tremor, this new device is not a cure but could help patients enjoy a better quality of life,” said Carlos Peña, PhD, director of the division of neurological and physical medicine devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the agency’s announcement of the approval. The device “could help them to avoid more extensive surgical treatments,” such as thalamotomy or a deep brain stimulation device, Dr. Peña said.
The clinical data used to support the approval included a double-blind, controlled trial of 76 patients with essential tremor who had not responded to medication therapy.
The 56 patients who were randomly selected to receive the Exablate Neuro treatment showed nearly a 50% improvement in their tremors and motor function 3 months after treatment, compared with their baseline score. The 20 patients who received a sham control treatment had no improvement, and some experienced a slight worsening after the sham procedure before they crossed over into the treatment group at the 3-month time point.
At 12 months post procedure, the treatment group retained a 40% improvement in those scores, compared with baseline.
Adverse events reported by patients treated with the device were similar to those reported by patients who have undergone thalamotomy. Events included numbness/tingling of the fingers, headache, imbalance/unsteadiness, loss of control of body movements (ataxia), or gait disturbance.
Other side effects identified as possibly related to treatment with MR-guided focused ultrasound treatments include tissue damage in an area other than the treatment area, hemorrhage in the treated area requiring emergency treatment, skin burns with ulceration of the skin, skin retraction, and scar formation and blood clots.
InSightec manufacturers the Exablate Neuro device.
A device that uses transcranial focused ultrasound to destroy the MRI-identified pathologic area of the thalamus in essential tremor patients became the first of its kind to receive Food and Drug Administration approval for use in patients whose condition has been refractory to medications such as beta-blockers or anticonvulsant drugs.
In patients who have undergone evaluation by CT and MRI to determine their suitability for the procedure, the Exablate Neuro device delivers focused ultrasound at incrementally higher energies until patients achieve a reduction of tremor. Patients are awake and responsive during the entire treatment.
“As with other treatments for essential tremor, this new device is not a cure but could help patients enjoy a better quality of life,” said Carlos Peña, PhD, director of the division of neurological and physical medicine devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the agency’s announcement of the approval. The device “could help them to avoid more extensive surgical treatments,” such as thalamotomy or a deep brain stimulation device, Dr. Peña said.
The clinical data used to support the approval included a double-blind, controlled trial of 76 patients with essential tremor who had not responded to medication therapy.
The 56 patients who were randomly selected to receive the Exablate Neuro treatment showed nearly a 50% improvement in their tremors and motor function 3 months after treatment, compared with their baseline score. The 20 patients who received a sham control treatment had no improvement, and some experienced a slight worsening after the sham procedure before they crossed over into the treatment group at the 3-month time point.
At 12 months post procedure, the treatment group retained a 40% improvement in those scores, compared with baseline.
Adverse events reported by patients treated with the device were similar to those reported by patients who have undergone thalamotomy. Events included numbness/tingling of the fingers, headache, imbalance/unsteadiness, loss of control of body movements (ataxia), or gait disturbance.
Other side effects identified as possibly related to treatment with MR-guided focused ultrasound treatments include tissue damage in an area other than the treatment area, hemorrhage in the treated area requiring emergency treatment, skin burns with ulceration of the skin, skin retraction, and scar formation and blood clots.
InSightec manufacturers the Exablate Neuro device.
A device that uses transcranial focused ultrasound to destroy the MRI-identified pathologic area of the thalamus in essential tremor patients became the first of its kind to receive Food and Drug Administration approval for use in patients whose condition has been refractory to medications such as beta-blockers or anticonvulsant drugs.
In patients who have undergone evaluation by CT and MRI to determine their suitability for the procedure, the Exablate Neuro device delivers focused ultrasound at incrementally higher energies until patients achieve a reduction of tremor. Patients are awake and responsive during the entire treatment.
“As with other treatments for essential tremor, this new device is not a cure but could help patients enjoy a better quality of life,” said Carlos Peña, PhD, director of the division of neurological and physical medicine devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the agency’s announcement of the approval. The device “could help them to avoid more extensive surgical treatments,” such as thalamotomy or a deep brain stimulation device, Dr. Peña said.
The clinical data used to support the approval included a double-blind, controlled trial of 76 patients with essential tremor who had not responded to medication therapy.
The 56 patients who were randomly selected to receive the Exablate Neuro treatment showed nearly a 50% improvement in their tremors and motor function 3 months after treatment, compared with their baseline score. The 20 patients who received a sham control treatment had no improvement, and some experienced a slight worsening after the sham procedure before they crossed over into the treatment group at the 3-month time point.
At 12 months post procedure, the treatment group retained a 40% improvement in those scores, compared with baseline.
Adverse events reported by patients treated with the device were similar to those reported by patients who have undergone thalamotomy. Events included numbness/tingling of the fingers, headache, imbalance/unsteadiness, loss of control of body movements (ataxia), or gait disturbance.
Other side effects identified as possibly related to treatment with MR-guided focused ultrasound treatments include tissue damage in an area other than the treatment area, hemorrhage in the treated area requiring emergency treatment, skin burns with ulceration of the skin, skin retraction, and scar formation and blood clots.
InSightec manufacturers the Exablate Neuro device.
VIDEO: TNF inhibitors improved refractory skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis
LONDON – Tumor necrosis factor–inhibitor treatment improved refractory skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis patients in the largest observational study of its kind from the United Kingdom and Ireland Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group.
Muscle disease in the juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) patients largely had already improved with conventional therapies prior to treatment with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha agents, but it did improve further with anti-TNFs.
The effect of TNF inhibitors was most notable for those with skin calcinosis, lead author Dr. Raquel Campanilho-Marques reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of her colleagues in the Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group.
Some evidence suggests that TNF-alpha might be involved in the pathogenesis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, particularly in more prolonged courses of JDM.
But there is limited prior evidence for the efficacy of TNF inhibitors in JDM patients, where small observational studies and case series have shown improved core-set measures of disease activity in patients treated with anti-TNF agents, noted Dr. Campanilho-Marques, a pediatric rheumatologist in the infection, inflammation and rheumatology section at the University College London Institute of Child Health and the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust in London.
The 67 patients in the study involved those who were enrolled in the JDM Cohort and Biomarker Study, met Bohan and Peter criteria for JDM, and were on anti-TNF therapy at the time of analysis because of nonresponse to conventional therapy, active skin disease, calcinosis, or muscle weakness. They had at least 3 months of anti-TNF therapy and received either infliximab 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (after a standard initial induction regimen) or adalimumab (Humira) 24 mg/m2 every other week.
A majority of the patients in the study were female (n = 41) and white (n = 54), with a mean age at disease onset of about 5 years. At the time of first use of anti-TNF agents, the patients had a mean age of about 10 years and a mean disease duration of 3.2 years. Treatment with TNF inhibitors lasted for a mean of about 2.5 years.
Of the 67 patients, data were not analyzed for 4 patients; there was insufficient information for 1 patient, while 3 patients had allergic reactions to their anti-TNF therapy on the first or second infusion. The remaining 63 patients included 43 who received infliximab, 4 on adalimumab, and 16 who used both.
Prior to anti-TNF treatment, 52 of 53 patients (98%) were taking methotrexate, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of those. That declined to 45 of 56 (80%) at the start of anti-TNF therapy and then increased to 44 of 49 (89%) after 12 months of using an anti-TNF agent.
The use of cyclophosphamide declined markedly, from 26 of 65 patients (40%) to 3 of 65 (5%) at the start of TNF inhibition, and then to none after 12 months of anti-TNF therapy. Immunoglobulin therapy also declined, from use in 10%-12% of patients before and at the start of anti-TNF treatment to just 1 of 41 patients (2%) after 12 months of TNF inhibitor therapy.
The median modified Disease Activity Score for skin involvement significantly improved over the course of 12 months of treatment with infliximab, decreasing from 4 to 1. That was also the case for Physician Global Assessment score, as well as muscle outcome measurements on the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS) and the 8-item Manual Muscle Testing (MMT8).
For the 31 patients in the study who had calcinosis, lesions improved (reduced in number and/or size) in 17 patients, including 8 with complete resolution of their lesions. In the other 14 patients, lesions remained stable in 3 (fewer than three lesions) and were widespread or did not improve in 4; the other 7 patients had insufficient data to determine outcomes.
Most patients with muscle involvement already had improved with steroids prior to using anti-TNF drugs. Thus, the improvement in CMAS and MMT8 scores on anti-TNF treatment was not very large, going from about 45 to 53 and from about 74 to 79, respectively.
The investigators did not examine treatment response in relation to muscle-specific antibodies, but Dr. Campanilho-Marques said that it is something they would like to do in the future.
The main indication for anti-TNF agents was active skin disease that had not responded to conventional treatment, noted Dr. Campanilho-Marques, who is also with the departments of rheumatology at the Santa Maria Hospital and the Instituto Português de Reumatologia, both in Lisbon.
For 16 patients who switched from infliximab to adalimumab, the changes in outcome measures were not statistically significant. The switches occurred at a median of 2.35 months after starting infliximab; 10 patients switched because of inefficacy, 4 because of adverse events, and 2 because of patient preference.
After 12 months of anti-TNF therapy, the median prednisolone dose declined from 6 mg to 2.5 mg, but the decline appeared to be driven by five patients who sharply decreased their dose. Seven patients successfully stopped anti-TNF therapy after improvement occurred, Dr. Campanilho-Marques said.
Serious adverse events occurred 12 times during the year-long study period, including nine allergic reactions and three hospitalizations because of infection. Another 19 mild-to-moderate adverse events took place, which involved 15 infections and three local site reactions and skin rash, which led five patients to discontinue the biologic.
Overall, adverse events occurred at a rate of 13.3/100 patient-years, including 5.2 serious events/100 patient-years. One patient died because of a small bowel perforation that was probably secondary to disease-related damage. There were no malignancies or tuberculosis cases.
In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Campanilho-Marques discussed the study findings and their implications.
The researchers had no relevant disclosures.
LONDON – Tumor necrosis factor–inhibitor treatment improved refractory skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis patients in the largest observational study of its kind from the United Kingdom and Ireland Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group.
Muscle disease in the juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) patients largely had already improved with conventional therapies prior to treatment with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha agents, but it did improve further with anti-TNFs.
The effect of TNF inhibitors was most notable for those with skin calcinosis, lead author Dr. Raquel Campanilho-Marques reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of her colleagues in the Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group.
Some evidence suggests that TNF-alpha might be involved in the pathogenesis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, particularly in more prolonged courses of JDM.
But there is limited prior evidence for the efficacy of TNF inhibitors in JDM patients, where small observational studies and case series have shown improved core-set measures of disease activity in patients treated with anti-TNF agents, noted Dr. Campanilho-Marques, a pediatric rheumatologist in the infection, inflammation and rheumatology section at the University College London Institute of Child Health and the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust in London.
The 67 patients in the study involved those who were enrolled in the JDM Cohort and Biomarker Study, met Bohan and Peter criteria for JDM, and were on anti-TNF therapy at the time of analysis because of nonresponse to conventional therapy, active skin disease, calcinosis, or muscle weakness. They had at least 3 months of anti-TNF therapy and received either infliximab 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (after a standard initial induction regimen) or adalimumab (Humira) 24 mg/m2 every other week.
A majority of the patients in the study were female (n = 41) and white (n = 54), with a mean age at disease onset of about 5 years. At the time of first use of anti-TNF agents, the patients had a mean age of about 10 years and a mean disease duration of 3.2 years. Treatment with TNF inhibitors lasted for a mean of about 2.5 years.
Of the 67 patients, data were not analyzed for 4 patients; there was insufficient information for 1 patient, while 3 patients had allergic reactions to their anti-TNF therapy on the first or second infusion. The remaining 63 patients included 43 who received infliximab, 4 on adalimumab, and 16 who used both.
Prior to anti-TNF treatment, 52 of 53 patients (98%) were taking methotrexate, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of those. That declined to 45 of 56 (80%) at the start of anti-TNF therapy and then increased to 44 of 49 (89%) after 12 months of using an anti-TNF agent.
The use of cyclophosphamide declined markedly, from 26 of 65 patients (40%) to 3 of 65 (5%) at the start of TNF inhibition, and then to none after 12 months of anti-TNF therapy. Immunoglobulin therapy also declined, from use in 10%-12% of patients before and at the start of anti-TNF treatment to just 1 of 41 patients (2%) after 12 months of TNF inhibitor therapy.
The median modified Disease Activity Score for skin involvement significantly improved over the course of 12 months of treatment with infliximab, decreasing from 4 to 1. That was also the case for Physician Global Assessment score, as well as muscle outcome measurements on the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS) and the 8-item Manual Muscle Testing (MMT8).
For the 31 patients in the study who had calcinosis, lesions improved (reduced in number and/or size) in 17 patients, including 8 with complete resolution of their lesions. In the other 14 patients, lesions remained stable in 3 (fewer than three lesions) and were widespread or did not improve in 4; the other 7 patients had insufficient data to determine outcomes.
Most patients with muscle involvement already had improved with steroids prior to using anti-TNF drugs. Thus, the improvement in CMAS and MMT8 scores on anti-TNF treatment was not very large, going from about 45 to 53 and from about 74 to 79, respectively.
The investigators did not examine treatment response in relation to muscle-specific antibodies, but Dr. Campanilho-Marques said that it is something they would like to do in the future.
The main indication for anti-TNF agents was active skin disease that had not responded to conventional treatment, noted Dr. Campanilho-Marques, who is also with the departments of rheumatology at the Santa Maria Hospital and the Instituto Português de Reumatologia, both in Lisbon.
For 16 patients who switched from infliximab to adalimumab, the changes in outcome measures were not statistically significant. The switches occurred at a median of 2.35 months after starting infliximab; 10 patients switched because of inefficacy, 4 because of adverse events, and 2 because of patient preference.
After 12 months of anti-TNF therapy, the median prednisolone dose declined from 6 mg to 2.5 mg, but the decline appeared to be driven by five patients who sharply decreased their dose. Seven patients successfully stopped anti-TNF therapy after improvement occurred, Dr. Campanilho-Marques said.
Serious adverse events occurred 12 times during the year-long study period, including nine allergic reactions and three hospitalizations because of infection. Another 19 mild-to-moderate adverse events took place, which involved 15 infections and three local site reactions and skin rash, which led five patients to discontinue the biologic.
Overall, adverse events occurred at a rate of 13.3/100 patient-years, including 5.2 serious events/100 patient-years. One patient died because of a small bowel perforation that was probably secondary to disease-related damage. There were no malignancies or tuberculosis cases.
In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Campanilho-Marques discussed the study findings and their implications.
The researchers had no relevant disclosures.
LONDON – Tumor necrosis factor–inhibitor treatment improved refractory skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis patients in the largest observational study of its kind from the United Kingdom and Ireland Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group.
Muscle disease in the juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) patients largely had already improved with conventional therapies prior to treatment with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha agents, but it did improve further with anti-TNFs.
The effect of TNF inhibitors was most notable for those with skin calcinosis, lead author Dr. Raquel Campanilho-Marques reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology on behalf of her colleagues in the Juvenile Dermatomyositis Research Group.
Some evidence suggests that TNF-alpha might be involved in the pathogenesis of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, particularly in more prolonged courses of JDM.
But there is limited prior evidence for the efficacy of TNF inhibitors in JDM patients, where small observational studies and case series have shown improved core-set measures of disease activity in patients treated with anti-TNF agents, noted Dr. Campanilho-Marques, a pediatric rheumatologist in the infection, inflammation and rheumatology section at the University College London Institute of Child Health and the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust in London.
The 67 patients in the study involved those who were enrolled in the JDM Cohort and Biomarker Study, met Bohan and Peter criteria for JDM, and were on anti-TNF therapy at the time of analysis because of nonresponse to conventional therapy, active skin disease, calcinosis, or muscle weakness. They had at least 3 months of anti-TNF therapy and received either infliximab 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (after a standard initial induction regimen) or adalimumab (Humira) 24 mg/m2 every other week.
A majority of the patients in the study were female (n = 41) and white (n = 54), with a mean age at disease onset of about 5 years. At the time of first use of anti-TNF agents, the patients had a mean age of about 10 years and a mean disease duration of 3.2 years. Treatment with TNF inhibitors lasted for a mean of about 2.5 years.
Of the 67 patients, data were not analyzed for 4 patients; there was insufficient information for 1 patient, while 3 patients had allergic reactions to their anti-TNF therapy on the first or second infusion. The remaining 63 patients included 43 who received infliximab, 4 on adalimumab, and 16 who used both.
Prior to anti-TNF treatment, 52 of 53 patients (98%) were taking methotrexate, azathioprine, hydroxychloroquine, or a combination of those. That declined to 45 of 56 (80%) at the start of anti-TNF therapy and then increased to 44 of 49 (89%) after 12 months of using an anti-TNF agent.
The use of cyclophosphamide declined markedly, from 26 of 65 patients (40%) to 3 of 65 (5%) at the start of TNF inhibition, and then to none after 12 months of anti-TNF therapy. Immunoglobulin therapy also declined, from use in 10%-12% of patients before and at the start of anti-TNF treatment to just 1 of 41 patients (2%) after 12 months of TNF inhibitor therapy.
The median modified Disease Activity Score for skin involvement significantly improved over the course of 12 months of treatment with infliximab, decreasing from 4 to 1. That was also the case for Physician Global Assessment score, as well as muscle outcome measurements on the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS) and the 8-item Manual Muscle Testing (MMT8).
For the 31 patients in the study who had calcinosis, lesions improved (reduced in number and/or size) in 17 patients, including 8 with complete resolution of their lesions. In the other 14 patients, lesions remained stable in 3 (fewer than three lesions) and were widespread or did not improve in 4; the other 7 patients had insufficient data to determine outcomes.
Most patients with muscle involvement already had improved with steroids prior to using anti-TNF drugs. Thus, the improvement in CMAS and MMT8 scores on anti-TNF treatment was not very large, going from about 45 to 53 and from about 74 to 79, respectively.
The investigators did not examine treatment response in relation to muscle-specific antibodies, but Dr. Campanilho-Marques said that it is something they would like to do in the future.
The main indication for anti-TNF agents was active skin disease that had not responded to conventional treatment, noted Dr. Campanilho-Marques, who is also with the departments of rheumatology at the Santa Maria Hospital and the Instituto Português de Reumatologia, both in Lisbon.
For 16 patients who switched from infliximab to adalimumab, the changes in outcome measures were not statistically significant. The switches occurred at a median of 2.35 months after starting infliximab; 10 patients switched because of inefficacy, 4 because of adverse events, and 2 because of patient preference.
After 12 months of anti-TNF therapy, the median prednisolone dose declined from 6 mg to 2.5 mg, but the decline appeared to be driven by five patients who sharply decreased their dose. Seven patients successfully stopped anti-TNF therapy after improvement occurred, Dr. Campanilho-Marques said.
Serious adverse events occurred 12 times during the year-long study period, including nine allergic reactions and three hospitalizations because of infection. Another 19 mild-to-moderate adverse events took place, which involved 15 infections and three local site reactions and skin rash, which led five patients to discontinue the biologic.
Overall, adverse events occurred at a rate of 13.3/100 patient-years, including 5.2 serious events/100 patient-years. One patient died because of a small bowel perforation that was probably secondary to disease-related damage. There were no malignancies or tuberculosis cases.
In a video interview at the meeting, Dr. Campanilho-Marques discussed the study findings and their implications.
The researchers had no relevant disclosures.
AT THE EULAR 2016 CONGRESS
<p><b>Key clinical point: </b>TNF inhibitor treatment in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis may be beneficial for skin involvement that is refractory to conventional treatments.
</p><p><b>Major finding: </b>The median Modified Disease Activity score for skin involvement significantly improved over 12 months of treatment with infliximab, decreasing from 4 to 1.
</p><p><b>Data source: </b>An observational cohort study of 67 JDM patients.
</p><p><b>Disclosures:</b> The researchers had no relevant disclosures.</p>
VIDEO: No major malformations ascribed to bisphosphonate use in pregnancy
LONDON – One of the largest studies of pregnancy outcomes after bisphosphonate exposure has found no evidence for major teratogenic effects in women with inflammatory diseases and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and women with bone diseases.
However, the investigators for the French case-control study did find higher rates of neonatal complications and spontaneous abortion among infants of mothers with systemic inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate use, but the results could be the result of confounding because of the severity of underlying disease and exposure to other medications.
“I think if a women is worried about bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy, this study can bring her some reassuring news,” although it does not necessarily mean that bisphosphonates are safe during pregnancy, first author Aurélien Sokal said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. He is a medical student at Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France, but conducted the study with colleagues during his time in training in the rheumatology department at Paris-Sud University.
“Very little is known about the effect of bisphosphonates on pregnancy outcomes and fetal development,” Mr. Sokal said, and they are feared for possible teratogenic effects in pregnancy because of their long half-life in bone – where they can be released even 1 year after their administration – as well as their ability to cross the placenta and high affinity for high-turnover bones, such as those in a growing fetus. He also noted that abnormalities in bone length, low birth weights, and bone diseases have been observed in rats exposed to bisphosphonates during gestation.
The study compared 23 patients with inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy against 92 controls with inflammatory diseases but no exposure, and 16 with bone diseases and exposure to bisphosphonates against 64 healthy controls with no underlying disease or bisphosphonate use. The patients came from a database assembled by the French Reference Center of Teratogenic Agents (CRAT) in Paris that has collected information since 1975 on patients referred for any drug exposure during pregnancy and followed their care through the end of pregnancy. The 39 patients who were exposed to bisphosphonates took the drugs during 1987-2014 within the 6 weeks preceding (n = 6) or during pregnancy (n = 33). They had a mean age of 33 years.
Systemic inflammatory diseases
The systemic inflammatory diseases found in women in the study included systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic vasculitis, and other diseases. Of the 23 cases with systemic inflammatory diseases, 16 took risedronate, 5 took alendronate, 1 took etidronate, and the bisphosphonate was unknown in 1. Bisphosphonate exposure occurred before pregnancy in 2, during the first trimester in 21, second trimester in 4, third trimester in 4, and in all trimesters in 1.
Other types of medications were used significantly more often by patients with systemic inflammatory diseases than by controls: steroids (78% vs. 47%), methotrexate (26% vs. 5%), colchicine (17% vs. 2%), proton pump inhibitors (22% vs. 5%), and reproductive hormones (17% vs. 2%). Controls took antimalarials significantly more often (50% vs. 22%).
Voluntary abortions occurred at a similar rate in both exposed and unexposed women (12% vs. 9%), whereas significantly more therapeutic pregnancy terminations occurred among women exposed to bisphosphonates (17% vs. 1%). Live births occurred in 94% of the remaining exposed pregnant women, compared with 80% of controls.
Newborns were delivered at a mean of 38 weeks in both cases and controls, and there were no differences in birth weight, length, or rate of congenital malformation (9% vs. 2%).
The two malformations in neonates from exposed women had an uncertain link to bisphosphonates. One involved a neonate with severe malformative syndrome and advanced bone maturation who had a mother with SLE and was exposed to multiple drugs, including mycophenolate mofetil. The other neonate had ductus arteriosus, inguinal hernia, and negative otoacoustic emission; the baby’s mother had Crohn’s disease but had not taken known teratogenic drugs.
Two neonatal malformations among control women involved one neonate with severe malformative syndrome who had a mother with SLE but who was without exposure to known teratogenic drugs, and another with convulsant encephalopathy whose mother had systemic sclerosis and took pentoxifylline, cisapride, dihydroergocryptine, and colchicine.
However, cases had a 25% rate of neonatal complications, compared with a significantly lower 5% in controls. No infants had hypocalcemia.
Bone diseases
The 16 women with bone diseases included 9 with osteoporosis, 3 with malignancy, and 4 with miscellaneous bone conditions. A total of 5 received intravenous bisphosphonates and 11 received oral drugs (9 alendronate, 2 other). Most received a bisphosphonate in the first trimester (9 patients), but also 4 received it before pregnancy and 3 in the second trimester. More pregnancy terminations (voluntary or therapeutic) occurred among women with bone disease when compared with controls (19% vs. 3%), but the difference was not statistically significant. However in the remaining patients, live births occurred significantly less often in cases than in controls (69% vs. 100%). Birth weight, length, gestational age at birth, and the rates of congenital malformation and neonatal complications were otherwise similar.
The results of the study fall in line with those from the two major previous controlled studies on 24 women (Reprod Toxicol. 2006 Nov;22:578-9) and 21 women (Bone. 2009 Mar;44:428-30). Another series of 10 bisphosphonate-exposed pregnancies described 2 malformations, including 1 ventricular septal defect and 1 kidney and cardiac malformation (Autoimmun Rev. 2010 Jun;9:547-52). Another single case report described a neonate with bilateral talipes equinovarus (J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Oct;19:1742-5). A literature review of 78 cases of bisphosphonate exposure during or prior to pregnancy reported three malformations (Hormones [Athens]. 2011 Oct-Dec;10:280-91).
The study is ongoing and continues to collect data on the follow-up of children, Mr. Sokal said.
The study had no specific funding, and none of the investigators had disclosures to report.
LONDON – One of the largest studies of pregnancy outcomes after bisphosphonate exposure has found no evidence for major teratogenic effects in women with inflammatory diseases and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and women with bone diseases.
However, the investigators for the French case-control study did find higher rates of neonatal complications and spontaneous abortion among infants of mothers with systemic inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate use, but the results could be the result of confounding because of the severity of underlying disease and exposure to other medications.
“I think if a women is worried about bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy, this study can bring her some reassuring news,” although it does not necessarily mean that bisphosphonates are safe during pregnancy, first author Aurélien Sokal said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. He is a medical student at Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France, but conducted the study with colleagues during his time in training in the rheumatology department at Paris-Sud University.
“Very little is known about the effect of bisphosphonates on pregnancy outcomes and fetal development,” Mr. Sokal said, and they are feared for possible teratogenic effects in pregnancy because of their long half-life in bone – where they can be released even 1 year after their administration – as well as their ability to cross the placenta and high affinity for high-turnover bones, such as those in a growing fetus. He also noted that abnormalities in bone length, low birth weights, and bone diseases have been observed in rats exposed to bisphosphonates during gestation.
The study compared 23 patients with inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy against 92 controls with inflammatory diseases but no exposure, and 16 with bone diseases and exposure to bisphosphonates against 64 healthy controls with no underlying disease or bisphosphonate use. The patients came from a database assembled by the French Reference Center of Teratogenic Agents (CRAT) in Paris that has collected information since 1975 on patients referred for any drug exposure during pregnancy and followed their care through the end of pregnancy. The 39 patients who were exposed to bisphosphonates took the drugs during 1987-2014 within the 6 weeks preceding (n = 6) or during pregnancy (n = 33). They had a mean age of 33 years.
Systemic inflammatory diseases
The systemic inflammatory diseases found in women in the study included systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic vasculitis, and other diseases. Of the 23 cases with systemic inflammatory diseases, 16 took risedronate, 5 took alendronate, 1 took etidronate, and the bisphosphonate was unknown in 1. Bisphosphonate exposure occurred before pregnancy in 2, during the first trimester in 21, second trimester in 4, third trimester in 4, and in all trimesters in 1.
Other types of medications were used significantly more often by patients with systemic inflammatory diseases than by controls: steroids (78% vs. 47%), methotrexate (26% vs. 5%), colchicine (17% vs. 2%), proton pump inhibitors (22% vs. 5%), and reproductive hormones (17% vs. 2%). Controls took antimalarials significantly more often (50% vs. 22%).
Voluntary abortions occurred at a similar rate in both exposed and unexposed women (12% vs. 9%), whereas significantly more therapeutic pregnancy terminations occurred among women exposed to bisphosphonates (17% vs. 1%). Live births occurred in 94% of the remaining exposed pregnant women, compared with 80% of controls.
Newborns were delivered at a mean of 38 weeks in both cases and controls, and there were no differences in birth weight, length, or rate of congenital malformation (9% vs. 2%).
The two malformations in neonates from exposed women had an uncertain link to bisphosphonates. One involved a neonate with severe malformative syndrome and advanced bone maturation who had a mother with SLE and was exposed to multiple drugs, including mycophenolate mofetil. The other neonate had ductus arteriosus, inguinal hernia, and negative otoacoustic emission; the baby’s mother had Crohn’s disease but had not taken known teratogenic drugs.
Two neonatal malformations among control women involved one neonate with severe malformative syndrome who had a mother with SLE but who was without exposure to known teratogenic drugs, and another with convulsant encephalopathy whose mother had systemic sclerosis and took pentoxifylline, cisapride, dihydroergocryptine, and colchicine.
However, cases had a 25% rate of neonatal complications, compared with a significantly lower 5% in controls. No infants had hypocalcemia.
Bone diseases
The 16 women with bone diseases included 9 with osteoporosis, 3 with malignancy, and 4 with miscellaneous bone conditions. A total of 5 received intravenous bisphosphonates and 11 received oral drugs (9 alendronate, 2 other). Most received a bisphosphonate in the first trimester (9 patients), but also 4 received it before pregnancy and 3 in the second trimester. More pregnancy terminations (voluntary or therapeutic) occurred among women with bone disease when compared with controls (19% vs. 3%), but the difference was not statistically significant. However in the remaining patients, live births occurred significantly less often in cases than in controls (69% vs. 100%). Birth weight, length, gestational age at birth, and the rates of congenital malformation and neonatal complications were otherwise similar.
The results of the study fall in line with those from the two major previous controlled studies on 24 women (Reprod Toxicol. 2006 Nov;22:578-9) and 21 women (Bone. 2009 Mar;44:428-30). Another series of 10 bisphosphonate-exposed pregnancies described 2 malformations, including 1 ventricular septal defect and 1 kidney and cardiac malformation (Autoimmun Rev. 2010 Jun;9:547-52). Another single case report described a neonate with bilateral talipes equinovarus (J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Oct;19:1742-5). A literature review of 78 cases of bisphosphonate exposure during or prior to pregnancy reported three malformations (Hormones [Athens]. 2011 Oct-Dec;10:280-91).
The study is ongoing and continues to collect data on the follow-up of children, Mr. Sokal said.
The study had no specific funding, and none of the investigators had disclosures to report.
LONDON – One of the largest studies of pregnancy outcomes after bisphosphonate exposure has found no evidence for major teratogenic effects in women with inflammatory diseases and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and women with bone diseases.
However, the investigators for the French case-control study did find higher rates of neonatal complications and spontaneous abortion among infants of mothers with systemic inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate use, but the results could be the result of confounding because of the severity of underlying disease and exposure to other medications.
“I think if a women is worried about bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy, this study can bring her some reassuring news,” although it does not necessarily mean that bisphosphonates are safe during pregnancy, first author Aurélien Sokal said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. He is a medical student at Beaujon Hospital, Clichy, France, but conducted the study with colleagues during his time in training in the rheumatology department at Paris-Sud University.
“Very little is known about the effect of bisphosphonates on pregnancy outcomes and fetal development,” Mr. Sokal said, and they are feared for possible teratogenic effects in pregnancy because of their long half-life in bone – where they can be released even 1 year after their administration – as well as their ability to cross the placenta and high affinity for high-turnover bones, such as those in a growing fetus. He also noted that abnormalities in bone length, low birth weights, and bone diseases have been observed in rats exposed to bisphosphonates during gestation.
The study compared 23 patients with inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy against 92 controls with inflammatory diseases but no exposure, and 16 with bone diseases and exposure to bisphosphonates against 64 healthy controls with no underlying disease or bisphosphonate use. The patients came from a database assembled by the French Reference Center of Teratogenic Agents (CRAT) in Paris that has collected information since 1975 on patients referred for any drug exposure during pregnancy and followed their care through the end of pregnancy. The 39 patients who were exposed to bisphosphonates took the drugs during 1987-2014 within the 6 weeks preceding (n = 6) or during pregnancy (n = 33). They had a mean age of 33 years.
Systemic inflammatory diseases
The systemic inflammatory diseases found in women in the study included systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, antiphospholipid syndrome, systemic vasculitis, and other diseases. Of the 23 cases with systemic inflammatory diseases, 16 took risedronate, 5 took alendronate, 1 took etidronate, and the bisphosphonate was unknown in 1. Bisphosphonate exposure occurred before pregnancy in 2, during the first trimester in 21, second trimester in 4, third trimester in 4, and in all trimesters in 1.
Other types of medications were used significantly more often by patients with systemic inflammatory diseases than by controls: steroids (78% vs. 47%), methotrexate (26% vs. 5%), colchicine (17% vs. 2%), proton pump inhibitors (22% vs. 5%), and reproductive hormones (17% vs. 2%). Controls took antimalarials significantly more often (50% vs. 22%).
Voluntary abortions occurred at a similar rate in both exposed and unexposed women (12% vs. 9%), whereas significantly more therapeutic pregnancy terminations occurred among women exposed to bisphosphonates (17% vs. 1%). Live births occurred in 94% of the remaining exposed pregnant women, compared with 80% of controls.
Newborns were delivered at a mean of 38 weeks in both cases and controls, and there were no differences in birth weight, length, or rate of congenital malformation (9% vs. 2%).
The two malformations in neonates from exposed women had an uncertain link to bisphosphonates. One involved a neonate with severe malformative syndrome and advanced bone maturation who had a mother with SLE and was exposed to multiple drugs, including mycophenolate mofetil. The other neonate had ductus arteriosus, inguinal hernia, and negative otoacoustic emission; the baby’s mother had Crohn’s disease but had not taken known teratogenic drugs.
Two neonatal malformations among control women involved one neonate with severe malformative syndrome who had a mother with SLE but who was without exposure to known teratogenic drugs, and another with convulsant encephalopathy whose mother had systemic sclerosis and took pentoxifylline, cisapride, dihydroergocryptine, and colchicine.
However, cases had a 25% rate of neonatal complications, compared with a significantly lower 5% in controls. No infants had hypocalcemia.
Bone diseases
The 16 women with bone diseases included 9 with osteoporosis, 3 with malignancy, and 4 with miscellaneous bone conditions. A total of 5 received intravenous bisphosphonates and 11 received oral drugs (9 alendronate, 2 other). Most received a bisphosphonate in the first trimester (9 patients), but also 4 received it before pregnancy and 3 in the second trimester. More pregnancy terminations (voluntary or therapeutic) occurred among women with bone disease when compared with controls (19% vs. 3%), but the difference was not statistically significant. However in the remaining patients, live births occurred significantly less often in cases than in controls (69% vs. 100%). Birth weight, length, gestational age at birth, and the rates of congenital malformation and neonatal complications were otherwise similar.
The results of the study fall in line with those from the two major previous controlled studies on 24 women (Reprod Toxicol. 2006 Nov;22:578-9) and 21 women (Bone. 2009 Mar;44:428-30). Another series of 10 bisphosphonate-exposed pregnancies described 2 malformations, including 1 ventricular septal defect and 1 kidney and cardiac malformation (Autoimmun Rev. 2010 Jun;9:547-52). Another single case report described a neonate with bilateral talipes equinovarus (J Bone Miner Res. 2004 Oct;19:1742-5). A literature review of 78 cases of bisphosphonate exposure during or prior to pregnancy reported three malformations (Hormones [Athens]. 2011 Oct-Dec;10:280-91).
The study is ongoing and continues to collect data on the follow-up of children, Mr. Sokal said.
The study had no specific funding, and none of the investigators had disclosures to report.
AT THE EULAR 2016 CONGRESS
<p><b>Key clinical point: </b>One of the largest controlled studies on pregnancy outcomes following bisphosphonate use found no increase in major malformations.<b></b>
</p><p><b>Major finding: </b>Congenital malformations occurred at similar rates for both cases and controls with systemic inflammatory disease and also for women with bone diseases and bisphosphonate exposure in comparison with healthy control women.<b></b>
</p><p><b>Data source: </b>A French case-control study involving 23 patients with systemic inflammatory diseases and bisphosphonate exposure during pregnancy, 92 controls with systemic inflammatory diseases but no exposure, 16 with bone diseases and exposure to bisphosphonates, and 64 healthy controls with no underlying disease or bisphosphonate exposure.
</p><p><b>Disclosures: </b>The study had no specific funding and none of the investigators had disclosures to report.</p>
VIDEO: Romosozumab bested teriparatide in hip BMD transitioning from bisphosphonates
LONDON – Bone mineral density (BMD) and estimated bone strength in the hip significantly increased during 1 year of treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody romosozumab in comparison with teriparatide in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had previous fracture history and had been taking bisphosphonates for at least the previous 3 years in an open-label, randomized trial.
The investigators in the phase III, international, multicenter STRUCTURE trial sought to compare the monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody romosozumab, which works dually to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption, against the bone-forming agent teriparatide (Forteo) to see if it would increase total hip bone mineral density to a significantly greater extent by 12 months. Teriparatide is known to take longer to build bone at the hip following bisphosphonate use.
“These results in our minds suggest that romosozumab may offer a unique benefit to patients at high risk for fracture, transitioning from bisphosphonates,” first author Bente L. Langdahl, Ph.D., of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She discussed the study results in this video interview.
When Dr. Langdahl was asked after her presentation about the foreseen role of the drug in clinical practice, she noted that ongoing phase III trials looking at fracture endpoints should indicate whether it works faster at preventing fractures. Because there does not seem to be a restriction to the repeated use of romosozumab, she suggested it might be given initially for 12 months to build bone, followed by bisphosphonates to stabilize gains made, and then it could be used again if needed in a treat-to-target fashion.
The trial randomized 436 patients to receive either subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 mcg once daily for 12 months. All patients received a loading dose of 50,000-60,000 IU vitamin D3 to make sure they were vitamin D replete. The patients were postmenopausal, aged 55-90 years, and required to have taken oral bisphosphonate therapy at a dose equivalent to 70 mg weekly of alendronate for at least 3 years before enrollment (with at least 1 year of alendronate therapy prior to enrollment). They had a T score of –2.5 or less in total hip, lumbar spine, or femoral neck BMD and a history of a nonvertebral fracture after 50 years of age or a vertebral fracture at any age.
At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline, which was calculated by averaging dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at 6 and 12 months, increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with a loss of –1.6% in the teriparatide group.
“Why did we choose this rather unusual endpoint? It’s because we wanted to capture what happened throughout the first year,” Dr. Langdahl said.
The respective changes from baseline total hip BMD at month 12 were 2.9% vs. –0.5%; in the femoral neck, the 12-month change was 3.2% vs. –0.2%; and in the lumbar spine, the change was 9.8% vs. 5.4%.
The trial participants had a mean age of about 71 years, and T scores ranging from –2.87 to –2.83 in the lumbar spine, –2.27 to –2.21 in total hip, and –2.49 to –2.43 in the femoral neck.
Secondary endpoints of volumetric BMD measured by quantitative CT at 12 months supported the results for DXA measurements at the total hip: integral BMD changed 3.4% with romosozumab vs. –0.2% with teriparatide, cortical BMD changed 1.1% with romosozumab vs. –3.6% with teriparatide, and trabecular BMD increased 15.6% vs. 9.9%, respectively. Total hip strength at 12 months as estimated by finite element analysis rose by 2.5% with romosozumab, compared with a loss of –0.7% with teriparatide. The loss in estimated bone strength at the hip occurred mainly in the first 6 months of treatment with teriparatide and had started to recover by 12 months.
The main difference between the two treatments in total hip BMD came from romosozumab’s bone-building effect on cortical bone, Dr. Langdahl said. The significant loss of total hip cortical BMD observed with teriparatide matches what has been seen in other studies, and it occurs “because the way that teriparatide works initially on cortical bone is to open up the remodeling space; therefore, a decrease in BMD is seen.”
While romosozumab’s speed in increasing BMD and building bone strength is likely to be clinically meaningful for patients at high risk of fracture, the short duration of the trial likely left out the possibility of seeing the same sort of late increases in hip BMD and bone strength during the second year of treatment with teriparatide that have been observed in other studies. Dr. Langdahl suggested that the decline in total hip cortical bone volumetric BMD may have increased had there been more time for measurement in the study; after bisphosphonate treatment, teriparatide’s mechanism of action is thought to open up the bone remodeling space by stimulating bone resorption and formation, particularly in cortical bone.
“You will see an increased porosity in the cortical bone, and I think that is what explains the initial decrease. You’ll also see that it’s kind of catching up [to romosozumab]. This is only a 12-month study, unfortunately. I’m sure if it had been continued for 24 months, there would be an increase in strength because that has been demonstrated in other studies.”
The trial’s comparison of romosozumab versus teriparatide alone also leaves open the question of whether adding teriparatide to bisphosphonate or switching to a combination of teriparatide plus denosumab or teriparatide plus zoledronic acid might have yielded results comparable with romosozumab alone.
Furthermore, The study is not large enough to determine the overall side-effect profile of romosozumab and will have to wait until the larger, ongoing phase III studies are completed, Dr. Langdahl said. In the STRUCTURE study, the overall side effect profile was well balanced between the two groups. More women who received teriparatide developed hypercalcemia, and patients who received romosozumab developed antibodies, although they did not neutralize the agent’s effects.
The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.
LONDON – Bone mineral density (BMD) and estimated bone strength in the hip significantly increased during 1 year of treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody romosozumab in comparison with teriparatide in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had previous fracture history and had been taking bisphosphonates for at least the previous 3 years in an open-label, randomized trial.
The investigators in the phase III, international, multicenter STRUCTURE trial sought to compare the monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody romosozumab, which works dually to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption, against the bone-forming agent teriparatide (Forteo) to see if it would increase total hip bone mineral density to a significantly greater extent by 12 months. Teriparatide is known to take longer to build bone at the hip following bisphosphonate use.
“These results in our minds suggest that romosozumab may offer a unique benefit to patients at high risk for fracture, transitioning from bisphosphonates,” first author Bente L. Langdahl, Ph.D., of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She discussed the study results in this video interview.
When Dr. Langdahl was asked after her presentation about the foreseen role of the drug in clinical practice, she noted that ongoing phase III trials looking at fracture endpoints should indicate whether it works faster at preventing fractures. Because there does not seem to be a restriction to the repeated use of romosozumab, she suggested it might be given initially for 12 months to build bone, followed by bisphosphonates to stabilize gains made, and then it could be used again if needed in a treat-to-target fashion.
The trial randomized 436 patients to receive either subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 mcg once daily for 12 months. All patients received a loading dose of 50,000-60,000 IU vitamin D3 to make sure they were vitamin D replete. The patients were postmenopausal, aged 55-90 years, and required to have taken oral bisphosphonate therapy at a dose equivalent to 70 mg weekly of alendronate for at least 3 years before enrollment (with at least 1 year of alendronate therapy prior to enrollment). They had a T score of –2.5 or less in total hip, lumbar spine, or femoral neck BMD and a history of a nonvertebral fracture after 50 years of age or a vertebral fracture at any age.
At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline, which was calculated by averaging dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at 6 and 12 months, increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with a loss of –1.6% in the teriparatide group.
“Why did we choose this rather unusual endpoint? It’s because we wanted to capture what happened throughout the first year,” Dr. Langdahl said.
The respective changes from baseline total hip BMD at month 12 were 2.9% vs. –0.5%; in the femoral neck, the 12-month change was 3.2% vs. –0.2%; and in the lumbar spine, the change was 9.8% vs. 5.4%.
The trial participants had a mean age of about 71 years, and T scores ranging from –2.87 to –2.83 in the lumbar spine, –2.27 to –2.21 in total hip, and –2.49 to –2.43 in the femoral neck.
Secondary endpoints of volumetric BMD measured by quantitative CT at 12 months supported the results for DXA measurements at the total hip: integral BMD changed 3.4% with romosozumab vs. –0.2% with teriparatide, cortical BMD changed 1.1% with romosozumab vs. –3.6% with teriparatide, and trabecular BMD increased 15.6% vs. 9.9%, respectively. Total hip strength at 12 months as estimated by finite element analysis rose by 2.5% with romosozumab, compared with a loss of –0.7% with teriparatide. The loss in estimated bone strength at the hip occurred mainly in the first 6 months of treatment with teriparatide and had started to recover by 12 months.
The main difference between the two treatments in total hip BMD came from romosozumab’s bone-building effect on cortical bone, Dr. Langdahl said. The significant loss of total hip cortical BMD observed with teriparatide matches what has been seen in other studies, and it occurs “because the way that teriparatide works initially on cortical bone is to open up the remodeling space; therefore, a decrease in BMD is seen.”
While romosozumab’s speed in increasing BMD and building bone strength is likely to be clinically meaningful for patients at high risk of fracture, the short duration of the trial likely left out the possibility of seeing the same sort of late increases in hip BMD and bone strength during the second year of treatment with teriparatide that have been observed in other studies. Dr. Langdahl suggested that the decline in total hip cortical bone volumetric BMD may have increased had there been more time for measurement in the study; after bisphosphonate treatment, teriparatide’s mechanism of action is thought to open up the bone remodeling space by stimulating bone resorption and formation, particularly in cortical bone.
“You will see an increased porosity in the cortical bone, and I think that is what explains the initial decrease. You’ll also see that it’s kind of catching up [to romosozumab]. This is only a 12-month study, unfortunately. I’m sure if it had been continued for 24 months, there would be an increase in strength because that has been demonstrated in other studies.”
The trial’s comparison of romosozumab versus teriparatide alone also leaves open the question of whether adding teriparatide to bisphosphonate or switching to a combination of teriparatide plus denosumab or teriparatide plus zoledronic acid might have yielded results comparable with romosozumab alone.
Furthermore, The study is not large enough to determine the overall side-effect profile of romosozumab and will have to wait until the larger, ongoing phase III studies are completed, Dr. Langdahl said. In the STRUCTURE study, the overall side effect profile was well balanced between the two groups. More women who received teriparatide developed hypercalcemia, and patients who received romosozumab developed antibodies, although they did not neutralize the agent’s effects.
The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.
LONDON – Bone mineral density (BMD) and estimated bone strength in the hip significantly increased during 1 year of treatment with the investigational monoclonal antibody romosozumab in comparison with teriparatide in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had previous fracture history and had been taking bisphosphonates for at least the previous 3 years in an open-label, randomized trial.
The investigators in the phase III, international, multicenter STRUCTURE trial sought to compare the monoclonal anti-sclerostin antibody romosozumab, which works dually to increase bone formation and decrease bone resorption, against the bone-forming agent teriparatide (Forteo) to see if it would increase total hip bone mineral density to a significantly greater extent by 12 months. Teriparatide is known to take longer to build bone at the hip following bisphosphonate use.
“These results in our minds suggest that romosozumab may offer a unique benefit to patients at high risk for fracture, transitioning from bisphosphonates,” first author Bente L. Langdahl, Ph.D., of Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. She discussed the study results in this video interview.
When Dr. Langdahl was asked after her presentation about the foreseen role of the drug in clinical practice, she noted that ongoing phase III trials looking at fracture endpoints should indicate whether it works faster at preventing fractures. Because there does not seem to be a restriction to the repeated use of romosozumab, she suggested it might be given initially for 12 months to build bone, followed by bisphosphonates to stabilize gains made, and then it could be used again if needed in a treat-to-target fashion.
The trial randomized 436 patients to receive either subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg once monthly or subcutaneous teriparatide 20 mcg once daily for 12 months. All patients received a loading dose of 50,000-60,000 IU vitamin D3 to make sure they were vitamin D replete. The patients were postmenopausal, aged 55-90 years, and required to have taken oral bisphosphonate therapy at a dose equivalent to 70 mg weekly of alendronate for at least 3 years before enrollment (with at least 1 year of alendronate therapy prior to enrollment). They had a T score of –2.5 or less in total hip, lumbar spine, or femoral neck BMD and a history of a nonvertebral fracture after 50 years of age or a vertebral fracture at any age.
At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline, which was calculated by averaging dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements at 6 and 12 months, increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with a loss of –1.6% in the teriparatide group.
“Why did we choose this rather unusual endpoint? It’s because we wanted to capture what happened throughout the first year,” Dr. Langdahl said.
The respective changes from baseline total hip BMD at month 12 were 2.9% vs. –0.5%; in the femoral neck, the 12-month change was 3.2% vs. –0.2%; and in the lumbar spine, the change was 9.8% vs. 5.4%.
The trial participants had a mean age of about 71 years, and T scores ranging from –2.87 to –2.83 in the lumbar spine, –2.27 to –2.21 in total hip, and –2.49 to –2.43 in the femoral neck.
Secondary endpoints of volumetric BMD measured by quantitative CT at 12 months supported the results for DXA measurements at the total hip: integral BMD changed 3.4% with romosozumab vs. –0.2% with teriparatide, cortical BMD changed 1.1% with romosozumab vs. –3.6% with teriparatide, and trabecular BMD increased 15.6% vs. 9.9%, respectively. Total hip strength at 12 months as estimated by finite element analysis rose by 2.5% with romosozumab, compared with a loss of –0.7% with teriparatide. The loss in estimated bone strength at the hip occurred mainly in the first 6 months of treatment with teriparatide and had started to recover by 12 months.
The main difference between the two treatments in total hip BMD came from romosozumab’s bone-building effect on cortical bone, Dr. Langdahl said. The significant loss of total hip cortical BMD observed with teriparatide matches what has been seen in other studies, and it occurs “because the way that teriparatide works initially on cortical bone is to open up the remodeling space; therefore, a decrease in BMD is seen.”
While romosozumab’s speed in increasing BMD and building bone strength is likely to be clinically meaningful for patients at high risk of fracture, the short duration of the trial likely left out the possibility of seeing the same sort of late increases in hip BMD and bone strength during the second year of treatment with teriparatide that have been observed in other studies. Dr. Langdahl suggested that the decline in total hip cortical bone volumetric BMD may have increased had there been more time for measurement in the study; after bisphosphonate treatment, teriparatide’s mechanism of action is thought to open up the bone remodeling space by stimulating bone resorption and formation, particularly in cortical bone.
“You will see an increased porosity in the cortical bone, and I think that is what explains the initial decrease. You’ll also see that it’s kind of catching up [to romosozumab]. This is only a 12-month study, unfortunately. I’m sure if it had been continued for 24 months, there would be an increase in strength because that has been demonstrated in other studies.”
The trial’s comparison of romosozumab versus teriparatide alone also leaves open the question of whether adding teriparatide to bisphosphonate or switching to a combination of teriparatide plus denosumab or teriparatide plus zoledronic acid might have yielded results comparable with romosozumab alone.
Furthermore, The study is not large enough to determine the overall side-effect profile of romosozumab and will have to wait until the larger, ongoing phase III studies are completed, Dr. Langdahl said. In the STRUCTURE study, the overall side effect profile was well balanced between the two groups. More women who received teriparatide developed hypercalcemia, and patients who received romosozumab developed antibodies, although they did not neutralize the agent’s effects.
The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.
AT THE EULAR 2016 CONGRESS
<p><b>Key clinical point:</b> Romosozumab raised total hip BMD to a significantly greater extent than did teriparatide after 12 months in postmenopausal women with a history of fracture who were transitioning from bisphosphonate therapy.
</p><p><b>Major finding:</b> At 12 months, the primary endpoint of total hip BMD percentage change from baseline averaged from dual x-ray absorptiometry measurements at 6 and 12 months increased significantly by 2.6% in the romosozumab group, compared with –1.6% in the teriparatide group.
</p><p><b>Data source:</b> The multicenter, randomized, open-label STRUCTURE trial of romosozumab vs. teriparatide in postmenopausal women who had a previous history of nonvertebral or vertebral fracture and 3 or more previous years of bisphosphonate treatment.
</p><p><b>Disclosures:</b> The study was sponsored by UCB Pharma and Amgen. One investigator is an employee of UCB, and one is an employee of Amgen. Dr. Langdahl reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and/or honoraria from Amgen, UCB, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Orkla. Most other investigators also reported financial relationships to Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.</p>
Methotrexate in RA: Too low, too short, too few subcutaneous doses?
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Methotrexate’s role as the mainstay drug of choice to treat rheumatoid arthritis has never been challenged, but questions persist as to why many rheumatologists don’t seem to titrate the dose of the drug up for a long enough period to see significant improvement in disease activity, or don’t instead start with or switch to subcutaneous administration before adding a biologic.
The issue is likely to come to greater prominence soon because of the rise of value-based care, according to Dr. James O’Dell, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
“Rheumatologists will ultimately be held accountable for providing value-based care. We’ll be measured on how well patients are doing, hopefully, and how expensive it is for you to take care of them. When rheumatologists are scored in that way, they will look for ways to provide quality care less expensively. And when they do that, they’ll use more methotrexate, they’ll use higher doses of methotrexate, they’ll use subcutaneous methotrexate, they’ll use more conventional therapy,” he said in an interview.
Dr. O’Dell called for rheumatologists to give methotrexate a longer time to work and to give subcutaneous methotrexate a shot before moving on to biologics, based on analyses of the TEAR (Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial and a U.S. pharmaceutical claims database study of methotrexate-prescribing habits during 2009-2014 that he presented at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Rheumatology Association (NCRA).
Overall, 28% of the early, poor-prognosis RA patients in the TEAR trial who were randomized to receive only oral methotrexate achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of less than 3.2 at 24 weeks. The weekly dose of methotrexate was escalated if there were any tender or swollen joints, rising from 10 mg to 15 mg at 6 weeks and from 15 mg to 20 mg at 24 weeks. Those patients who did well on methotrexate alone showed no clinically meaningful or statistically significant clinical or radiographic differences at week 48 to the end of the study at week 102, compared with patients who initially took methotrexate alone but were randomized to either triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine or combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy with etanercept and methotrexate after having a DAS28 of 3.2 or higher at 24 weeks, as well as patients who were initially randomized to triple therapy or combination DMARD therapy at the start of the trial (Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:1985-94).
“The TEAR trial clearly showed that there are many individual patients who do not require anything more than methotrexate alone,” Dr. O’Dell said in an interview. “It also showed that combinations of conventional therapy – methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine – are equally efficacious both clinically and radiographically to combinations of methotrexate and etanercept. One of the messages that the TEAR trial clearly showed us is that if you have a patient that needs to step up to a biologic, you can titrate methotrexate up and wait until the 6-month time point to make that decision. And if you wait until 6 months, the patient is not going to be harmed in terms of their ultimate clinical response, and they’re not going to be harmed in terms of radiographic progression.”
However, patients using methotrexate in the TEAR trial only went up to a maximum of 20 mg/week orally, and this itself may be improved on because of evidence for greater bioavailability of oral methotrexate when it is titrated up to even higher doses by 6 months. There also is evidence, although limited, for the superior efficacy and bioavailability of subcutaneous methotrexate, Dr. O’Dell said.
Some data are beginning to indicate the usefulness of going straight to subcutaneous rather than oral methotrexate, he said. Data from the prospective, observational Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) have shown that 55% of patients with early RA who used subcutaneous methotrexate alone as their initial treatment needed it only during the first year of treatment, compared with 23% who were treated initially with oral methotrexate alone. Lack of efficacy was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups that was cited as a reason for failure of the initial treatment, which was the case for 72% of oral users vs. 40% of subcutaneous users.
Another analysis from the CATCH study that was reported at the 2016 Congress of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) suggested that use of subcutaneous methotrexate as an initial treatment for RA could reduce the use of biologics by 53% after adjustment for confounding variables, compared with use of oral methotrexate.
When asked to comment on this, Dr. Daniel E. Furst noted that “there could be an awfully large selection bias in this study. If you ask yourself, ‘Why do people go to subcutaneous in an observational trial?’ it is possible that they didn’t have enough response to the oral. They didn’t go to a higher dose, but, rather stopped methotrexate altogether. The result is that injection looks better. I think this study has a significant flaw, as is often unavoidable in observational studies. This study, per se, does not prove that s.c. methotrexate has an advantage over oral methotrexate in terms of delay of starting a biologic.”
The increased bioavailability of subcutaneous administration versus oral – which is about 17% – does not make it necessarily better for all patients, Dr. Furst contended, although it can certainly be a good option for those affected by gastrointestinal side effects with oral administration. “Given that a 17% increase in bioavailability with subcutaneous administration, this equals about 3-4 mg extra methotrexate. 20 mg/week s.c. methotrexate equals about 23 or 24 mg/week of oral methotrexate. My point is that if a patients tolerates it, giving a little higher dose of oral methotrexate may be the same as giving a slightly higher dose subcutaneously. It is probably true, incidentally, that subcutaneous methotrexate, when given as a generic is less expensive than the oral. A 25-mg/mL vial costs somewhere in the range of one-half to one-third of oral.”
Waiting for 6 months of treatment with oral methotrexate is ideal when a patient is having some response but may not be appropriate for all, according to Dr. Furst, the Carl Pearson Professor of Medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He cited research showing 35% of patients who did not yet have an ACR 20–level response at 12 weeks of treatment with oral methotrexate alone at 7.5-20 mg/week can reach that level of response by 26 weeks (Rheumatology. 2010;49[6]:1201-3). “What I took away from that is, on a practical basis, if patients have absolutely no response, however you define it, by 12 weeks, then stop. If they’re having some response, then wait and see if they get more response before stopping,” he said.
The claims analysis that Dr. O’Dell discussed at the NCRA annual meeting gets straight to that point of whether rheumatologists are giving methotrexate a long enough time to work. What compounds the problem, according to Dr. O’Dell, is that too few people are giving oral methotrexate a long enough chance to work or trying subcutaneous dosing. The analysis of claims data from 35,640 RA patients during 2009-2014 that he originally presented at the 2015 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting showed that 44% of patients who started on oral methotrexate alone stayed on it throughout the study period and didn’t need anything else.
Prescribers, however, stopped oral methotrexate at a mean dose of 15.3 mg and moved 87% straight to a biologic without giving subcutaneous methotrexate a shot. They did that after a median of less than 6 months, and within 3 months in more than 40% of patients. Of the patients who were given subcutaneous methotrexate when their oral formulation wasn’t enough that’s all most of them needed, as 72% remained on subcutaneous methotrexate alone for the remainder of the study period. The rest moved on to a biologic, but after a median of almost a year, not a few months. When their time on oral and subcutaneous methotrexate was included, their median time to a biologic was more than 2 years. The same results applied to patients who started treatment in 2009 or 2012.
What the evidence from the claims data study does not say is why physicians are prescribing this way. Some might suggest that the influence of pharmaceutical companies might have something to do with it, although the notion is controversial. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials that involved a direct comparison of methotrexate monotherapy against methotrexate plus a biologic or biologic monotherapy to treat RA concluded that there is a dosing bias in the trials where methotrexate monotherapy is underdosed because none of the 13 trials that met criteria to be in the review used a methotrexate dose of 25 mg/week (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr 18. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209383). The investigators, led by Dr. Josefina Durán of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, said that they used 25 mg/week as the maximum recommended dose because it is recommended by EULAR and expert opinion.
The contention of bias in the trial due to underdosing was met with pointed questioning from Dr. Joel Kremer of the Center for Rheumatology and Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, and founder and chief executive officer of the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA). The fact that the authors relied on an expert consensus statement from 2009 to use as their basis for a maximal dose recommendation of 25 mg/week is not “clinical science,” he said in a commentary accompanying the report by Dr. Durán and colleagues (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr 20. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209505). No trials have shown that pushing the dose from 20 to 25 mg/week gives “significant further clinical improvement without experiencing some possible clinical or laboratory toxicity,” he said, noting that it doesn’t make sense to use a one-size-fits all approach to methotrexate dosing because “the balance between maximal efficacy and toxicity is highly variable and likely to be quite different in diverse genetic populations.” Also, because 7 of the 13 studies cited by the meta-analysis were from 2010 or before, they didn’t have the opportunity to incorporate the higher doses recommended by the expert panel into their designs. Rather than having any preplanned bias, he said, “the dosages and route of administration employed by these trials reflect the common empirical practice in vogue at the time those trials were conducted.”
“To me, the Durán study is significantly overstating the data,” Dr. Furst said. He pointed out that in some of the trials the patients “were actually allowed to use higher doses, but [the meta-analysis authors] said they didn’t. The data showed that they were using 20 mg/week as a mean, but some of them went higher because the standard deviation was 4.5 mg. So to say that it wasn’t the full dosing isn’t quite legit. They actually did allow the full dosing.”
“Dr. Kremer’s point is appropriate,” Dr. O’Dell said, “but it’s not the reality. His point is that there are not a lot of trials that say methotrexate gets better when you use 25 mg/week vs. 20 mg/week, or when you use it subcutaneously vs. orally, even though we know the bioavailability is substantially greater. He’s right in a strict sense, but the whole concept, everything we know, the common sense, tells us that pushing methotrexate to higher tolerable doses and using it subcutaneously is better for our patients. All the data that have looked at that supports that.”
Dr. O’Dell serves on advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Coherus, Antares, and Medac. Dr. Furst has received research support and has received honoraria or fees for serving as a consultant or on the speakers’ bureau for many pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer biologics.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Methotrexate’s role as the mainstay drug of choice to treat rheumatoid arthritis has never been challenged, but questions persist as to why many rheumatologists don’t seem to titrate the dose of the drug up for a long enough period to see significant improvement in disease activity, or don’t instead start with or switch to subcutaneous administration before adding a biologic.
The issue is likely to come to greater prominence soon because of the rise of value-based care, according to Dr. James O’Dell, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
“Rheumatologists will ultimately be held accountable for providing value-based care. We’ll be measured on how well patients are doing, hopefully, and how expensive it is for you to take care of them. When rheumatologists are scored in that way, they will look for ways to provide quality care less expensively. And when they do that, they’ll use more methotrexate, they’ll use higher doses of methotrexate, they’ll use subcutaneous methotrexate, they’ll use more conventional therapy,” he said in an interview.
Dr. O’Dell called for rheumatologists to give methotrexate a longer time to work and to give subcutaneous methotrexate a shot before moving on to biologics, based on analyses of the TEAR (Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial and a U.S. pharmaceutical claims database study of methotrexate-prescribing habits during 2009-2014 that he presented at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Rheumatology Association (NCRA).
Overall, 28% of the early, poor-prognosis RA patients in the TEAR trial who were randomized to receive only oral methotrexate achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of less than 3.2 at 24 weeks. The weekly dose of methotrexate was escalated if there were any tender or swollen joints, rising from 10 mg to 15 mg at 6 weeks and from 15 mg to 20 mg at 24 weeks. Those patients who did well on methotrexate alone showed no clinically meaningful or statistically significant clinical or radiographic differences at week 48 to the end of the study at week 102, compared with patients who initially took methotrexate alone but were randomized to either triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine or combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy with etanercept and methotrexate after having a DAS28 of 3.2 or higher at 24 weeks, as well as patients who were initially randomized to triple therapy or combination DMARD therapy at the start of the trial (Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:1985-94).
“The TEAR trial clearly showed that there are many individual patients who do not require anything more than methotrexate alone,” Dr. O’Dell said in an interview. “It also showed that combinations of conventional therapy – methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine – are equally efficacious both clinically and radiographically to combinations of methotrexate and etanercept. One of the messages that the TEAR trial clearly showed us is that if you have a patient that needs to step up to a biologic, you can titrate methotrexate up and wait until the 6-month time point to make that decision. And if you wait until 6 months, the patient is not going to be harmed in terms of their ultimate clinical response, and they’re not going to be harmed in terms of radiographic progression.”
However, patients using methotrexate in the TEAR trial only went up to a maximum of 20 mg/week orally, and this itself may be improved on because of evidence for greater bioavailability of oral methotrexate when it is titrated up to even higher doses by 6 months. There also is evidence, although limited, for the superior efficacy and bioavailability of subcutaneous methotrexate, Dr. O’Dell said.
Some data are beginning to indicate the usefulness of going straight to subcutaneous rather than oral methotrexate, he said. Data from the prospective, observational Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) have shown that 55% of patients with early RA who used subcutaneous methotrexate alone as their initial treatment needed it only during the first year of treatment, compared with 23% who were treated initially with oral methotrexate alone. Lack of efficacy was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups that was cited as a reason for failure of the initial treatment, which was the case for 72% of oral users vs. 40% of subcutaneous users.
Another analysis from the CATCH study that was reported at the 2016 Congress of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) suggested that use of subcutaneous methotrexate as an initial treatment for RA could reduce the use of biologics by 53% after adjustment for confounding variables, compared with use of oral methotrexate.
When asked to comment on this, Dr. Daniel E. Furst noted that “there could be an awfully large selection bias in this study. If you ask yourself, ‘Why do people go to subcutaneous in an observational trial?’ it is possible that they didn’t have enough response to the oral. They didn’t go to a higher dose, but, rather stopped methotrexate altogether. The result is that injection looks better. I think this study has a significant flaw, as is often unavoidable in observational studies. This study, per se, does not prove that s.c. methotrexate has an advantage over oral methotrexate in terms of delay of starting a biologic.”
The increased bioavailability of subcutaneous administration versus oral – which is about 17% – does not make it necessarily better for all patients, Dr. Furst contended, although it can certainly be a good option for those affected by gastrointestinal side effects with oral administration. “Given that a 17% increase in bioavailability with subcutaneous administration, this equals about 3-4 mg extra methotrexate. 20 mg/week s.c. methotrexate equals about 23 or 24 mg/week of oral methotrexate. My point is that if a patients tolerates it, giving a little higher dose of oral methotrexate may be the same as giving a slightly higher dose subcutaneously. It is probably true, incidentally, that subcutaneous methotrexate, when given as a generic is less expensive than the oral. A 25-mg/mL vial costs somewhere in the range of one-half to one-third of oral.”
Waiting for 6 months of treatment with oral methotrexate is ideal when a patient is having some response but may not be appropriate for all, according to Dr. Furst, the Carl Pearson Professor of Medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He cited research showing 35% of patients who did not yet have an ACR 20–level response at 12 weeks of treatment with oral methotrexate alone at 7.5-20 mg/week can reach that level of response by 26 weeks (Rheumatology. 2010;49[6]:1201-3). “What I took away from that is, on a practical basis, if patients have absolutely no response, however you define it, by 12 weeks, then stop. If they’re having some response, then wait and see if they get more response before stopping,” he said.
The claims analysis that Dr. O’Dell discussed at the NCRA annual meeting gets straight to that point of whether rheumatologists are giving methotrexate a long enough time to work. What compounds the problem, according to Dr. O’Dell, is that too few people are giving oral methotrexate a long enough chance to work or trying subcutaneous dosing. The analysis of claims data from 35,640 RA patients during 2009-2014 that he originally presented at the 2015 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting showed that 44% of patients who started on oral methotrexate alone stayed on it throughout the study period and didn’t need anything else.
Prescribers, however, stopped oral methotrexate at a mean dose of 15.3 mg and moved 87% straight to a biologic without giving subcutaneous methotrexate a shot. They did that after a median of less than 6 months, and within 3 months in more than 40% of patients. Of the patients who were given subcutaneous methotrexate when their oral formulation wasn’t enough that’s all most of them needed, as 72% remained on subcutaneous methotrexate alone for the remainder of the study period. The rest moved on to a biologic, but after a median of almost a year, not a few months. When their time on oral and subcutaneous methotrexate was included, their median time to a biologic was more than 2 years. The same results applied to patients who started treatment in 2009 or 2012.
What the evidence from the claims data study does not say is why physicians are prescribing this way. Some might suggest that the influence of pharmaceutical companies might have something to do with it, although the notion is controversial. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials that involved a direct comparison of methotrexate monotherapy against methotrexate plus a biologic or biologic monotherapy to treat RA concluded that there is a dosing bias in the trials where methotrexate monotherapy is underdosed because none of the 13 trials that met criteria to be in the review used a methotrexate dose of 25 mg/week (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr 18. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209383). The investigators, led by Dr. Josefina Durán of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, said that they used 25 mg/week as the maximum recommended dose because it is recommended by EULAR and expert opinion.
The contention of bias in the trial due to underdosing was met with pointed questioning from Dr. Joel Kremer of the Center for Rheumatology and Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, and founder and chief executive officer of the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA). The fact that the authors relied on an expert consensus statement from 2009 to use as their basis for a maximal dose recommendation of 25 mg/week is not “clinical science,” he said in a commentary accompanying the report by Dr. Durán and colleagues (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr 20. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209505). No trials have shown that pushing the dose from 20 to 25 mg/week gives “significant further clinical improvement without experiencing some possible clinical or laboratory toxicity,” he said, noting that it doesn’t make sense to use a one-size-fits all approach to methotrexate dosing because “the balance between maximal efficacy and toxicity is highly variable and likely to be quite different in diverse genetic populations.” Also, because 7 of the 13 studies cited by the meta-analysis were from 2010 or before, they didn’t have the opportunity to incorporate the higher doses recommended by the expert panel into their designs. Rather than having any preplanned bias, he said, “the dosages and route of administration employed by these trials reflect the common empirical practice in vogue at the time those trials were conducted.”
“To me, the Durán study is significantly overstating the data,” Dr. Furst said. He pointed out that in some of the trials the patients “were actually allowed to use higher doses, but [the meta-analysis authors] said they didn’t. The data showed that they were using 20 mg/week as a mean, but some of them went higher because the standard deviation was 4.5 mg. So to say that it wasn’t the full dosing isn’t quite legit. They actually did allow the full dosing.”
“Dr. Kremer’s point is appropriate,” Dr. O’Dell said, “but it’s not the reality. His point is that there are not a lot of trials that say methotrexate gets better when you use 25 mg/week vs. 20 mg/week, or when you use it subcutaneously vs. orally, even though we know the bioavailability is substantially greater. He’s right in a strict sense, but the whole concept, everything we know, the common sense, tells us that pushing methotrexate to higher tolerable doses and using it subcutaneously is better for our patients. All the data that have looked at that supports that.”
Dr. O’Dell serves on advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Coherus, Antares, and Medac. Dr. Furst has received research support and has received honoraria or fees for serving as a consultant or on the speakers’ bureau for many pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer biologics.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Methotrexate’s role as the mainstay drug of choice to treat rheumatoid arthritis has never been challenged, but questions persist as to why many rheumatologists don’t seem to titrate the dose of the drug up for a long enough period to see significant improvement in disease activity, or don’t instead start with or switch to subcutaneous administration before adding a biologic.
The issue is likely to come to greater prominence soon because of the rise of value-based care, according to Dr. James O’Dell, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
“Rheumatologists will ultimately be held accountable for providing value-based care. We’ll be measured on how well patients are doing, hopefully, and how expensive it is for you to take care of them. When rheumatologists are scored in that way, they will look for ways to provide quality care less expensively. And when they do that, they’ll use more methotrexate, they’ll use higher doses of methotrexate, they’ll use subcutaneous methotrexate, they’ll use more conventional therapy,” he said in an interview.
Dr. O’Dell called for rheumatologists to give methotrexate a longer time to work and to give subcutaneous methotrexate a shot before moving on to biologics, based on analyses of the TEAR (Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis) trial and a U.S. pharmaceutical claims database study of methotrexate-prescribing habits during 2009-2014 that he presented at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Rheumatology Association (NCRA).
Overall, 28% of the early, poor-prognosis RA patients in the TEAR trial who were randomized to receive only oral methotrexate achieved a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of less than 3.2 at 24 weeks. The weekly dose of methotrexate was escalated if there were any tender or swollen joints, rising from 10 mg to 15 mg at 6 weeks and from 15 mg to 20 mg at 24 weeks. Those patients who did well on methotrexate alone showed no clinically meaningful or statistically significant clinical or radiographic differences at week 48 to the end of the study at week 102, compared with patients who initially took methotrexate alone but were randomized to either triple therapy with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine or combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy with etanercept and methotrexate after having a DAS28 of 3.2 or higher at 24 weeks, as well as patients who were initially randomized to triple therapy or combination DMARD therapy at the start of the trial (Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65:1985-94).
“The TEAR trial clearly showed that there are many individual patients who do not require anything more than methotrexate alone,” Dr. O’Dell said in an interview. “It also showed that combinations of conventional therapy – methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine – are equally efficacious both clinically and radiographically to combinations of methotrexate and etanercept. One of the messages that the TEAR trial clearly showed us is that if you have a patient that needs to step up to a biologic, you can titrate methotrexate up and wait until the 6-month time point to make that decision. And if you wait until 6 months, the patient is not going to be harmed in terms of their ultimate clinical response, and they’re not going to be harmed in terms of radiographic progression.”
However, patients using methotrexate in the TEAR trial only went up to a maximum of 20 mg/week orally, and this itself may be improved on because of evidence for greater bioavailability of oral methotrexate when it is titrated up to even higher doses by 6 months. There also is evidence, although limited, for the superior efficacy and bioavailability of subcutaneous methotrexate, Dr. O’Dell said.
Some data are beginning to indicate the usefulness of going straight to subcutaneous rather than oral methotrexate, he said. Data from the prospective, observational Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) have shown that 55% of patients with early RA who used subcutaneous methotrexate alone as their initial treatment needed it only during the first year of treatment, compared with 23% who were treated initially with oral methotrexate alone. Lack of efficacy was the only statistically significant difference between the two groups that was cited as a reason for failure of the initial treatment, which was the case for 72% of oral users vs. 40% of subcutaneous users.
Another analysis from the CATCH study that was reported at the 2016 Congress of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) suggested that use of subcutaneous methotrexate as an initial treatment for RA could reduce the use of biologics by 53% after adjustment for confounding variables, compared with use of oral methotrexate.
When asked to comment on this, Dr. Daniel E. Furst noted that “there could be an awfully large selection bias in this study. If you ask yourself, ‘Why do people go to subcutaneous in an observational trial?’ it is possible that they didn’t have enough response to the oral. They didn’t go to a higher dose, but, rather stopped methotrexate altogether. The result is that injection looks better. I think this study has a significant flaw, as is often unavoidable in observational studies. This study, per se, does not prove that s.c. methotrexate has an advantage over oral methotrexate in terms of delay of starting a biologic.”
The increased bioavailability of subcutaneous administration versus oral – which is about 17% – does not make it necessarily better for all patients, Dr. Furst contended, although it can certainly be a good option for those affected by gastrointestinal side effects with oral administration. “Given that a 17% increase in bioavailability with subcutaneous administration, this equals about 3-4 mg extra methotrexate. 20 mg/week s.c. methotrexate equals about 23 or 24 mg/week of oral methotrexate. My point is that if a patients tolerates it, giving a little higher dose of oral methotrexate may be the same as giving a slightly higher dose subcutaneously. It is probably true, incidentally, that subcutaneous methotrexate, when given as a generic is less expensive than the oral. A 25-mg/mL vial costs somewhere in the range of one-half to one-third of oral.”
Waiting for 6 months of treatment with oral methotrexate is ideal when a patient is having some response but may not be appropriate for all, according to Dr. Furst, the Carl Pearson Professor of Medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He cited research showing 35% of patients who did not yet have an ACR 20–level response at 12 weeks of treatment with oral methotrexate alone at 7.5-20 mg/week can reach that level of response by 26 weeks (Rheumatology. 2010;49[6]:1201-3). “What I took away from that is, on a practical basis, if patients have absolutely no response, however you define it, by 12 weeks, then stop. If they’re having some response, then wait and see if they get more response before stopping,” he said.
The claims analysis that Dr. O’Dell discussed at the NCRA annual meeting gets straight to that point of whether rheumatologists are giving methotrexate a long enough time to work. What compounds the problem, according to Dr. O’Dell, is that too few people are giving oral methotrexate a long enough chance to work or trying subcutaneous dosing. The analysis of claims data from 35,640 RA patients during 2009-2014 that he originally presented at the 2015 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting showed that 44% of patients who started on oral methotrexate alone stayed on it throughout the study period and didn’t need anything else.
Prescribers, however, stopped oral methotrexate at a mean dose of 15.3 mg and moved 87% straight to a biologic without giving subcutaneous methotrexate a shot. They did that after a median of less than 6 months, and within 3 months in more than 40% of patients. Of the patients who were given subcutaneous methotrexate when their oral formulation wasn’t enough that’s all most of them needed, as 72% remained on subcutaneous methotrexate alone for the remainder of the study period. The rest moved on to a biologic, but after a median of almost a year, not a few months. When their time on oral and subcutaneous methotrexate was included, their median time to a biologic was more than 2 years. The same results applied to patients who started treatment in 2009 or 2012.
What the evidence from the claims data study does not say is why physicians are prescribing this way. Some might suggest that the influence of pharmaceutical companies might have something to do with it, although the notion is controversial. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials that involved a direct comparison of methotrexate monotherapy against methotrexate plus a biologic or biologic monotherapy to treat RA concluded that there is a dosing bias in the trials where methotrexate monotherapy is underdosed because none of the 13 trials that met criteria to be in the review used a methotrexate dose of 25 mg/week (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr 18. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209383). The investigators, led by Dr. Josefina Durán of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, said that they used 25 mg/week as the maximum recommended dose because it is recommended by EULAR and expert opinion.
The contention of bias in the trial due to underdosing was met with pointed questioning from Dr. Joel Kremer of the Center for Rheumatology and Albany (N.Y.) Medical College, and founder and chief executive officer of the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA). The fact that the authors relied on an expert consensus statement from 2009 to use as their basis for a maximal dose recommendation of 25 mg/week is not “clinical science,” he said in a commentary accompanying the report by Dr. Durán and colleagues (Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Apr 20. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209505). No trials have shown that pushing the dose from 20 to 25 mg/week gives “significant further clinical improvement without experiencing some possible clinical or laboratory toxicity,” he said, noting that it doesn’t make sense to use a one-size-fits all approach to methotrexate dosing because “the balance between maximal efficacy and toxicity is highly variable and likely to be quite different in diverse genetic populations.” Also, because 7 of the 13 studies cited by the meta-analysis were from 2010 or before, they didn’t have the opportunity to incorporate the higher doses recommended by the expert panel into their designs. Rather than having any preplanned bias, he said, “the dosages and route of administration employed by these trials reflect the common empirical practice in vogue at the time those trials were conducted.”
“To me, the Durán study is significantly overstating the data,” Dr. Furst said. He pointed out that in some of the trials the patients “were actually allowed to use higher doses, but [the meta-analysis authors] said they didn’t. The data showed that they were using 20 mg/week as a mean, but some of them went higher because the standard deviation was 4.5 mg. So to say that it wasn’t the full dosing isn’t quite legit. They actually did allow the full dosing.”
“Dr. Kremer’s point is appropriate,” Dr. O’Dell said, “but it’s not the reality. His point is that there are not a lot of trials that say methotrexate gets better when you use 25 mg/week vs. 20 mg/week, or when you use it subcutaneously vs. orally, even though we know the bioavailability is substantially greater. He’s right in a strict sense, but the whole concept, everything we know, the common sense, tells us that pushing methotrexate to higher tolerable doses and using it subcutaneously is better for our patients. All the data that have looked at that supports that.”
Dr. O’Dell serves on advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Coherus, Antares, and Medac. Dr. Furst has received research support and has received honoraria or fees for serving as a consultant or on the speakers’ bureau for many pharmaceutical companies that manufacturer biologics.
After Inflectra’s approval, challenges remain for biosimilars
Now that the Food and Drug Administration has approved Inflectra as the first biosimilar version of the anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha agent Remicade, rheumatologists and patient advocacy groups are taking stock of how it may be used in practice, and what the future holds for biosimilar drugs, with so many questions still unanswered regarding price, substitution, and safety.
Inflectra, approved in early April and given the generic name of infliximab-dyyb under the FDA’s nomenclature for biosimilar products, will have the same indications as Remicade. The agency extrapolated the clinical trial data that Inflectra’s South Korea–based manufacturer, Celltrion, submitted for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis to all other indications for which Remicade is approved.
It’s currently unclear how the FDA will note which clinical data in Inflectra’s labeling come from Inflectra and which from Remicade, and the same concerns lie with future biosimilar approvals if their results are extrapolated to indications not tested to show biosimilarity in clinical trials.
Labeling questions
It’s concerning to rheumatologists and the patients who will be using them that biosimilars such as Inflectra are not subject to the same pivotal trial experience as the reference biologics on which they are based, according to Dr. Jonathan Krant, section chief of rheumatology for Adirondack Health Systems in Saranac Lake, N.Y., and medical director for CreakyJoints, a community of patients with arthritis and caregivers, and its larger parent nonprofit advocacy organization, the Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF).
While the unique regulatory requirements in the biosimilar approval pathway reduce development costs and could potentially make Inflectra’s average wholesale price 30% less than Remicade – as was the case when Inflectra was first on the market in Europe – it’s not known how reduced costs may affect the safety of biosimilars.
“It worries all of us that manufacturers may cut corners to manage the cost constraints imposed by managed care,” Dr. Krant said in an interview.
Given that U.S. rheumatologists don’t have experience with biosimilars, Dr. Krant is anticipating some push back. “I think some physicians are going to fight back and won’t want to prescribe them, even if mandated, because of concerns regarding patient safety,” he said.
In a written statement, Dr. Joan Von Feldt, president of the American College of Rheumatology, welcomed the potential benefits on access to care that cost-saving biosimilars may bring to the U.S. health care system, but also said that “the safety of our patients remains our highest priority. As such, we encourage the FDA to continue to apply distinct names for future biosimilars, and to maximize clarity in the labeling of biosimilars, specifically with respect to their interchangeable status and the origins (reference drug versus biosimilar) of clinical data upon which FDA approval is based.”
Inflectra met the FDA’s “very similar” criteria to be approved as a biosimilar by showing it has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from Remicade, the agency said. According to FDA regulations, biosimilar products can have only minor differences in clinically inactive components and must have the same mechanism(s) of action (to the extent that it is known) and route(s) of administration, dosage form(s), and strength(s) as the reference product and can be approved only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product.
However, it may not hold true that Inflectra will have the same efficacy and safety for all indications that Remicade had due to potential differences in the mechanism of action through which Remicade exerts its effect across indications, which in this case may apply to the indications for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
Health Canada chose not to extrapolate the indications for Inflectra (known as Remsima in Canada) to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis because of “observed differences in the level of afucosylation, Fc-gammaRIIIa receptor binding, and some in vitro antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) assays” that could not rule out the possibility that Inflectra and Remicade differ in their ability to induce ADCC. Unlike the other indications for Remicade, Health Canada said “ADCC cannot be ruled out as a mechanism of action in the inflammatory bowel diseases. This position is supported by the observation that certolizumab pegol, another anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] that lacks the ability to induce ADCC, displays only marginal efficacy in Crohn’s patients, compared with other anti-TNFs, namely infliximab.”
Other organizations suggest that extrapolation of indications is only appropriate when it is benefiting the patient to the greatest extent possible.
“GHLF is okay with extrapolation of indication unless the mechanism of action for the therapy is either scientifically or therapeutically outdated,” Stephen Marmaras, state and national advocacy manager for the GHLF, said in an interview. “Patients are okay with extrapolating data in order to expedite the approval process as long as you are extrapolating to best in class therapy for a particular indication. What [the GHLF is] saying is we want biosimilars to be an improvement on what we have, not the lowest common denominator. We shouldn’t be extrapolating indications data from products that aren’t considered to be the best product for that indication.”
“If we’re just judging on expediting the approval process for indications that are not considered to be really treated well by this particular drug, you have to always assume that the insurance company is going to go with the lowest common denominator,” he added. “What that could lead to, from a slippery-slope perspective, is the chipping away of the use of cutting-edge therapies.”
Substitution concerns
Inflectra was not approved as interchangeable with Remicade or other infliximab biosimilars. The FDA has yet to define the regulatory requirements for interchangeability that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act states that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.”
A statement about implementation of the Act on the FDA website explains that for interchangeability, “a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, for a biological product that is administered more than once, that the risk of alternating or switching between use of the biosimilar product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product.”
One of the biggest concerns that physicians have is that biosimilars will be substituted for the reference products without notification, Dr. Krant said. “State by state we’re looking at potential substitution rules which allow pharmacists to switch out these cheaper molecules for the reference product,” he said, and without timely notification, patients and rheumatologists won’t know whether it was the reference product or a biosimilar that was associated with an adverse event or loss of efficacy.
The ACR and patient advocacy organizations such as the GHLF are against forced switching of patients for nonmedical reasons. Patients’ and rheumatologists’ confidence in biosimilar safety will be key to their uptake and the overall expansion of access to biologics to more patients, Mr. Marmaras said.
Patient costs uncertain
Although rheumatologists hope that with biosimilars’ lower costs, access will expand, there is no guarantee it will do so by saving patients money.
“It’s a common misperception that a 30% decrease in the cost of a several thousand dollar-a-month drug is going to automatically open all the doors to access,” said Dr. Sean Fahey, a rheumatologist in Mooresville, N.C., and chair of the insurance subcommittee of the ACR’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Most of my patients who use biologics do so either through copay cards from the pharmaceutical industry or through Medicare and a secondary [payer] covering their out-of-pocket costs for the infusible biologics. This is clearly saving the system money, which is important no doubt, but unless it’s significantly less expensive, it actually might not change the patient’s out-of pocket [cost] all that much.”
The patient assistance programs from biologics manufacturers that offer copay assistance, access hotlines, and administration benefits could be in jeopardy with the rise of biosimilars. Since the programs are bundled into the average wholesale price of the drug, the savings offered by the reduced wholesale price of biosimilars may squeeze them out, Dr. Krant said.
“There’s going to be a lot of hue and cry from the patients who cannot self-administer or have problems with compliance because of copays in the first place,” he predicted.
Another factor that could affect how much biosimilars such as Inflectra will be used is the amount of rebates or discounts that payers receive directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
“We know for the Medicaid population what the average sales prices are, but for private payers, we don’t know if they’re giving 2%, 5%, 18%; we have no idea what the data are. This could affect how much market share Inflectra gets,” said Dr. Fahey, who is also president of the North Carolina Rheumatology Association.
It may be awhile before Inflectra is available on the U.S. market. In a statement following the approval of Inflectra, Remicade-maker Janssen said the “patents for Remicade remain valid and enforceable until September 2018. A commercial launch of Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb in advance of this date would be an infringement of our patents, and we intend to defend our intellectual property rights.”
Janssen notes that its patient support program for Remicade “continues to offer a copay card for patients with commercial insurance that reduces the patient out-of-pocket cost to no more than $5 per infusion. Eligible uninsured and underinsured patients may be able to access Remicade through the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation.”
Pfizer, which owns the rights to marketing Inflectra in the United States, did not respond directly to a question about whether it would have a payment assistance program for Inflectra. “While we cannot comment on specific commercialization strategies at this time, we are working to bring these important therapies to market in the U.S. as quickly as possible,” said Rachel Hooper, Director of Public Affairs, West, for Pfizer.
It seems likely that once Inflectra does come to the market, new starts will account for many patients who will use the drug because of the lack of information available about whether there is, or is not, significant risk of immunogenicity with switching or loss of efficacy, Dr. Fahey said. “What is less certain is whether the payers will try to force us to move people from the Remicade brand to the infliximab biosimilar, and what the potential consequences of that is going to be.”
Dr. Krant, Dr. Fahey, and Mr. Marmaras had no relevant disclosures.
Now that the Food and Drug Administration has approved Inflectra as the first biosimilar version of the anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha agent Remicade, rheumatologists and patient advocacy groups are taking stock of how it may be used in practice, and what the future holds for biosimilar drugs, with so many questions still unanswered regarding price, substitution, and safety.
Inflectra, approved in early April and given the generic name of infliximab-dyyb under the FDA’s nomenclature for biosimilar products, will have the same indications as Remicade. The agency extrapolated the clinical trial data that Inflectra’s South Korea–based manufacturer, Celltrion, submitted for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis to all other indications for which Remicade is approved.
It’s currently unclear how the FDA will note which clinical data in Inflectra’s labeling come from Inflectra and which from Remicade, and the same concerns lie with future biosimilar approvals if their results are extrapolated to indications not tested to show biosimilarity in clinical trials.
Labeling questions
It’s concerning to rheumatologists and the patients who will be using them that biosimilars such as Inflectra are not subject to the same pivotal trial experience as the reference biologics on which they are based, according to Dr. Jonathan Krant, section chief of rheumatology for Adirondack Health Systems in Saranac Lake, N.Y., and medical director for CreakyJoints, a community of patients with arthritis and caregivers, and its larger parent nonprofit advocacy organization, the Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF).
While the unique regulatory requirements in the biosimilar approval pathway reduce development costs and could potentially make Inflectra’s average wholesale price 30% less than Remicade – as was the case when Inflectra was first on the market in Europe – it’s not known how reduced costs may affect the safety of biosimilars.
“It worries all of us that manufacturers may cut corners to manage the cost constraints imposed by managed care,” Dr. Krant said in an interview.
Given that U.S. rheumatologists don’t have experience with biosimilars, Dr. Krant is anticipating some push back. “I think some physicians are going to fight back and won’t want to prescribe them, even if mandated, because of concerns regarding patient safety,” he said.
In a written statement, Dr. Joan Von Feldt, president of the American College of Rheumatology, welcomed the potential benefits on access to care that cost-saving biosimilars may bring to the U.S. health care system, but also said that “the safety of our patients remains our highest priority. As such, we encourage the FDA to continue to apply distinct names for future biosimilars, and to maximize clarity in the labeling of biosimilars, specifically with respect to their interchangeable status and the origins (reference drug versus biosimilar) of clinical data upon which FDA approval is based.”
Inflectra met the FDA’s “very similar” criteria to be approved as a biosimilar by showing it has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from Remicade, the agency said. According to FDA regulations, biosimilar products can have only minor differences in clinically inactive components and must have the same mechanism(s) of action (to the extent that it is known) and route(s) of administration, dosage form(s), and strength(s) as the reference product and can be approved only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product.
However, it may not hold true that Inflectra will have the same efficacy and safety for all indications that Remicade had due to potential differences in the mechanism of action through which Remicade exerts its effect across indications, which in this case may apply to the indications for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
Health Canada chose not to extrapolate the indications for Inflectra (known as Remsima in Canada) to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis because of “observed differences in the level of afucosylation, Fc-gammaRIIIa receptor binding, and some in vitro antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) assays” that could not rule out the possibility that Inflectra and Remicade differ in their ability to induce ADCC. Unlike the other indications for Remicade, Health Canada said “ADCC cannot be ruled out as a mechanism of action in the inflammatory bowel diseases. This position is supported by the observation that certolizumab pegol, another anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] that lacks the ability to induce ADCC, displays only marginal efficacy in Crohn’s patients, compared with other anti-TNFs, namely infliximab.”
Other organizations suggest that extrapolation of indications is only appropriate when it is benefiting the patient to the greatest extent possible.
“GHLF is okay with extrapolation of indication unless the mechanism of action for the therapy is either scientifically or therapeutically outdated,” Stephen Marmaras, state and national advocacy manager for the GHLF, said in an interview. “Patients are okay with extrapolating data in order to expedite the approval process as long as you are extrapolating to best in class therapy for a particular indication. What [the GHLF is] saying is we want biosimilars to be an improvement on what we have, not the lowest common denominator. We shouldn’t be extrapolating indications data from products that aren’t considered to be the best product for that indication.”
“If we’re just judging on expediting the approval process for indications that are not considered to be really treated well by this particular drug, you have to always assume that the insurance company is going to go with the lowest common denominator,” he added. “What that could lead to, from a slippery-slope perspective, is the chipping away of the use of cutting-edge therapies.”
Substitution concerns
Inflectra was not approved as interchangeable with Remicade or other infliximab biosimilars. The FDA has yet to define the regulatory requirements for interchangeability that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act states that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.”
A statement about implementation of the Act on the FDA website explains that for interchangeability, “a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, for a biological product that is administered more than once, that the risk of alternating or switching between use of the biosimilar product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product.”
One of the biggest concerns that physicians have is that biosimilars will be substituted for the reference products without notification, Dr. Krant said. “State by state we’re looking at potential substitution rules which allow pharmacists to switch out these cheaper molecules for the reference product,” he said, and without timely notification, patients and rheumatologists won’t know whether it was the reference product or a biosimilar that was associated with an adverse event or loss of efficacy.
The ACR and patient advocacy organizations such as the GHLF are against forced switching of patients for nonmedical reasons. Patients’ and rheumatologists’ confidence in biosimilar safety will be key to their uptake and the overall expansion of access to biologics to more patients, Mr. Marmaras said.
Patient costs uncertain
Although rheumatologists hope that with biosimilars’ lower costs, access will expand, there is no guarantee it will do so by saving patients money.
“It’s a common misperception that a 30% decrease in the cost of a several thousand dollar-a-month drug is going to automatically open all the doors to access,” said Dr. Sean Fahey, a rheumatologist in Mooresville, N.C., and chair of the insurance subcommittee of the ACR’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Most of my patients who use biologics do so either through copay cards from the pharmaceutical industry or through Medicare and a secondary [payer] covering their out-of-pocket costs for the infusible biologics. This is clearly saving the system money, which is important no doubt, but unless it’s significantly less expensive, it actually might not change the patient’s out-of pocket [cost] all that much.”
The patient assistance programs from biologics manufacturers that offer copay assistance, access hotlines, and administration benefits could be in jeopardy with the rise of biosimilars. Since the programs are bundled into the average wholesale price of the drug, the savings offered by the reduced wholesale price of biosimilars may squeeze them out, Dr. Krant said.
“There’s going to be a lot of hue and cry from the patients who cannot self-administer or have problems with compliance because of copays in the first place,” he predicted.
Another factor that could affect how much biosimilars such as Inflectra will be used is the amount of rebates or discounts that payers receive directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
“We know for the Medicaid population what the average sales prices are, but for private payers, we don’t know if they’re giving 2%, 5%, 18%; we have no idea what the data are. This could affect how much market share Inflectra gets,” said Dr. Fahey, who is also president of the North Carolina Rheumatology Association.
It may be awhile before Inflectra is available on the U.S. market. In a statement following the approval of Inflectra, Remicade-maker Janssen said the “patents for Remicade remain valid and enforceable until September 2018. A commercial launch of Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb in advance of this date would be an infringement of our patents, and we intend to defend our intellectual property rights.”
Janssen notes that its patient support program for Remicade “continues to offer a copay card for patients with commercial insurance that reduces the patient out-of-pocket cost to no more than $5 per infusion. Eligible uninsured and underinsured patients may be able to access Remicade through the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation.”
Pfizer, which owns the rights to marketing Inflectra in the United States, did not respond directly to a question about whether it would have a payment assistance program for Inflectra. “While we cannot comment on specific commercialization strategies at this time, we are working to bring these important therapies to market in the U.S. as quickly as possible,” said Rachel Hooper, Director of Public Affairs, West, for Pfizer.
It seems likely that once Inflectra does come to the market, new starts will account for many patients who will use the drug because of the lack of information available about whether there is, or is not, significant risk of immunogenicity with switching or loss of efficacy, Dr. Fahey said. “What is less certain is whether the payers will try to force us to move people from the Remicade brand to the infliximab biosimilar, and what the potential consequences of that is going to be.”
Dr. Krant, Dr. Fahey, and Mr. Marmaras had no relevant disclosures.
Now that the Food and Drug Administration has approved Inflectra as the first biosimilar version of the anti–tumor necrosis factor-alpha agent Remicade, rheumatologists and patient advocacy groups are taking stock of how it may be used in practice, and what the future holds for biosimilar drugs, with so many questions still unanswered regarding price, substitution, and safety.
Inflectra, approved in early April and given the generic name of infliximab-dyyb under the FDA’s nomenclature for biosimilar products, will have the same indications as Remicade. The agency extrapolated the clinical trial data that Inflectra’s South Korea–based manufacturer, Celltrion, submitted for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis to all other indications for which Remicade is approved.
It’s currently unclear how the FDA will note which clinical data in Inflectra’s labeling come from Inflectra and which from Remicade, and the same concerns lie with future biosimilar approvals if their results are extrapolated to indications not tested to show biosimilarity in clinical trials.
Labeling questions
It’s concerning to rheumatologists and the patients who will be using them that biosimilars such as Inflectra are not subject to the same pivotal trial experience as the reference biologics on which they are based, according to Dr. Jonathan Krant, section chief of rheumatology for Adirondack Health Systems in Saranac Lake, N.Y., and medical director for CreakyJoints, a community of patients with arthritis and caregivers, and its larger parent nonprofit advocacy organization, the Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF).
While the unique regulatory requirements in the biosimilar approval pathway reduce development costs and could potentially make Inflectra’s average wholesale price 30% less than Remicade – as was the case when Inflectra was first on the market in Europe – it’s not known how reduced costs may affect the safety of biosimilars.
“It worries all of us that manufacturers may cut corners to manage the cost constraints imposed by managed care,” Dr. Krant said in an interview.
Given that U.S. rheumatologists don’t have experience with biosimilars, Dr. Krant is anticipating some push back. “I think some physicians are going to fight back and won’t want to prescribe them, even if mandated, because of concerns regarding patient safety,” he said.
In a written statement, Dr. Joan Von Feldt, president of the American College of Rheumatology, welcomed the potential benefits on access to care that cost-saving biosimilars may bring to the U.S. health care system, but also said that “the safety of our patients remains our highest priority. As such, we encourage the FDA to continue to apply distinct names for future biosimilars, and to maximize clarity in the labeling of biosimilars, specifically with respect to their interchangeable status and the origins (reference drug versus biosimilar) of clinical data upon which FDA approval is based.”
Inflectra met the FDA’s “very similar” criteria to be approved as a biosimilar by showing it has no clinically meaningful differences in terms of safety and effectiveness from Remicade, the agency said. According to FDA regulations, biosimilar products can have only minor differences in clinically inactive components and must have the same mechanism(s) of action (to the extent that it is known) and route(s) of administration, dosage form(s), and strength(s) as the reference product and can be approved only for the indication(s) and condition(s) of use that have been approved for the reference product.
However, it may not hold true that Inflectra will have the same efficacy and safety for all indications that Remicade had due to potential differences in the mechanism of action through which Remicade exerts its effect across indications, which in this case may apply to the indications for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
Health Canada chose not to extrapolate the indications for Inflectra (known as Remsima in Canada) to Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis because of “observed differences in the level of afucosylation, Fc-gammaRIIIa receptor binding, and some in vitro antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) assays” that could not rule out the possibility that Inflectra and Remicade differ in their ability to induce ADCC. Unlike the other indications for Remicade, Health Canada said “ADCC cannot be ruled out as a mechanism of action in the inflammatory bowel diseases. This position is supported by the observation that certolizumab pegol, another anti-TNF [anti–tumor necrosis factor] that lacks the ability to induce ADCC, displays only marginal efficacy in Crohn’s patients, compared with other anti-TNFs, namely infliximab.”
Other organizations suggest that extrapolation of indications is only appropriate when it is benefiting the patient to the greatest extent possible.
“GHLF is okay with extrapolation of indication unless the mechanism of action for the therapy is either scientifically or therapeutically outdated,” Stephen Marmaras, state and national advocacy manager for the GHLF, said in an interview. “Patients are okay with extrapolating data in order to expedite the approval process as long as you are extrapolating to best in class therapy for a particular indication. What [the GHLF is] saying is we want biosimilars to be an improvement on what we have, not the lowest common denominator. We shouldn’t be extrapolating indications data from products that aren’t considered to be the best product for that indication.”
“If we’re just judging on expediting the approval process for indications that are not considered to be really treated well by this particular drug, you have to always assume that the insurance company is going to go with the lowest common denominator,” he added. “What that could lead to, from a slippery-slope perspective, is the chipping away of the use of cutting-edge therapies.”
Substitution concerns
Inflectra was not approved as interchangeable with Remicade or other infliximab biosimilars. The FDA has yet to define the regulatory requirements for interchangeability that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009. That Act states that an approved biosimilar “may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.”
A statement about implementation of the Act on the FDA website explains that for interchangeability, “a sponsor must demonstrate that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, for a biological product that is administered more than once, that the risk of alternating or switching between use of the biosimilar product and the reference product is not greater than the risk of maintaining the patient on the reference product.”
One of the biggest concerns that physicians have is that biosimilars will be substituted for the reference products without notification, Dr. Krant said. “State by state we’re looking at potential substitution rules which allow pharmacists to switch out these cheaper molecules for the reference product,” he said, and without timely notification, patients and rheumatologists won’t know whether it was the reference product or a biosimilar that was associated with an adverse event or loss of efficacy.
The ACR and patient advocacy organizations such as the GHLF are against forced switching of patients for nonmedical reasons. Patients’ and rheumatologists’ confidence in biosimilar safety will be key to their uptake and the overall expansion of access to biologics to more patients, Mr. Marmaras said.
Patient costs uncertain
Although rheumatologists hope that with biosimilars’ lower costs, access will expand, there is no guarantee it will do so by saving patients money.
“It’s a common misperception that a 30% decrease in the cost of a several thousand dollar-a-month drug is going to automatically open all the doors to access,” said Dr. Sean Fahey, a rheumatologist in Mooresville, N.C., and chair of the insurance subcommittee of the ACR’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “Most of my patients who use biologics do so either through copay cards from the pharmaceutical industry or through Medicare and a secondary [payer] covering their out-of-pocket costs for the infusible biologics. This is clearly saving the system money, which is important no doubt, but unless it’s significantly less expensive, it actually might not change the patient’s out-of pocket [cost] all that much.”
The patient assistance programs from biologics manufacturers that offer copay assistance, access hotlines, and administration benefits could be in jeopardy with the rise of biosimilars. Since the programs are bundled into the average wholesale price of the drug, the savings offered by the reduced wholesale price of biosimilars may squeeze them out, Dr. Krant said.
“There’s going to be a lot of hue and cry from the patients who cannot self-administer or have problems with compliance because of copays in the first place,” he predicted.
Another factor that could affect how much biosimilars such as Inflectra will be used is the amount of rebates or discounts that payers receive directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
“We know for the Medicaid population what the average sales prices are, but for private payers, we don’t know if they’re giving 2%, 5%, 18%; we have no idea what the data are. This could affect how much market share Inflectra gets,” said Dr. Fahey, who is also president of the North Carolina Rheumatology Association.
It may be awhile before Inflectra is available on the U.S. market. In a statement following the approval of Inflectra, Remicade-maker Janssen said the “patents for Remicade remain valid and enforceable until September 2018. A commercial launch of Celltrion’s infliximab-dyyb in advance of this date would be an infringement of our patents, and we intend to defend our intellectual property rights.”
Janssen notes that its patient support program for Remicade “continues to offer a copay card for patients with commercial insurance that reduces the patient out-of-pocket cost to no more than $5 per infusion. Eligible uninsured and underinsured patients may be able to access Remicade through the Johnson & Johnson Patient Assistance Foundation.”
Pfizer, which owns the rights to marketing Inflectra in the United States, did not respond directly to a question about whether it would have a payment assistance program for Inflectra. “While we cannot comment on specific commercialization strategies at this time, we are working to bring these important therapies to market in the U.S. as quickly as possible,” said Rachel Hooper, Director of Public Affairs, West, for Pfizer.
It seems likely that once Inflectra does come to the market, new starts will account for many patients who will use the drug because of the lack of information available about whether there is, or is not, significant risk of immunogenicity with switching or loss of efficacy, Dr. Fahey said. “What is less certain is whether the payers will try to force us to move people from the Remicade brand to the infliximab biosimilar, and what the potential consequences of that is going to be.”
Dr. Krant, Dr. Fahey, and Mr. Marmaras had no relevant disclosures.
Endovascular thrombectomy procedure volume for stroke may not affect outcomes
VANCOUVER – The relationship between hospitals’ procedural volume and patient outcomes that has been observed for many cardiovascular interventions and other surgeries does not hold for endovascular mechanical thrombectomy procedures for acute ischemic stroke, according to an analysis of cases during 2008-2011 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
In-hospital mortality and rates for any complications were not associated with high or low endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT) volume at hospitals across the United States in the analysis of 13,502 adult patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke and treated with EMT, neurology resident Dr. Abhishek Lunagariya of the University of Florida, Gainesville, reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
A smaller prior study of 2,749 EMTs done in 296 hospitals in 2008 showed lower mortality in high-volume hospitals that performed 10 or more of the procedures per year (J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Nov; 22[8]:1263-9).
Of the 13,502 EMTs in the study, 25% occurred at low-volume hospitals performing less than 10 per year. Low-volume hospitals had higher in-hospital mortality than did higher-volume centers performing 10 or more of the procedures per year in an unadjusted comparison (26% vs. 21%). A comparison of a combined endpoint for any complications (in-hospital mortality, intracerebral hemorrhage, and vascular complications) was also significantly in favor of high-volume hospitals (34% vs. 30%).
However, in a multivariate hierarchical model, low-volume hospitals were not associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.23) or rate of any complications (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21). These analyses were adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, primary payer, median household income, hospital region/teaching status/location/bed size, Charlson Comorbidity Index, calendar year, and use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator.
Dr. Lunagariya noted that he and his associates could not adjust the comparisons for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores because they are not recorded in the National Inpatient Sample. They also could not examine what happened to patients after discharge.
Dr. Lunagariya suggested a variety of possible reasons that might help to explain the lack of an association between hospital procedure volume and outcomes after adjustment: the availability of better thrombectomy devices since the smaller 2008 study, lesser operator variability, favorable patient selection, and an increased skill set of operators working at low-volume hospitals.
One audience member noted that some endovascular interventionalists will operate at both high-volume and low-volume hospitals and could account for some of the findings. That indeed might be happening more often and needs to happen more often, Dr. Lunagariya said in an interview, in order to combat the “common belief” that it would be better to wait for a patient to undergo the procedure at a high- rather than low-volume hospital. Patients who receive initial care for stroke at a low-volume hospital but are not stable enough or do not have enough time to be transferred could benefit from EMT if an interventionalist who performs EMT drove there instead, he said.
With even newer devices now available that are thought to be easier to use, Dr. Lunagariya suggested that the similarity in outcomes at low- and higher-volume centers may not change in updated analyses of more recent EMT procedures for ischemic stroke.
The investigators received no funding for the study, and they reported having no financial disclosures.
VANCOUVER – The relationship between hospitals’ procedural volume and patient outcomes that has been observed for many cardiovascular interventions and other surgeries does not hold for endovascular mechanical thrombectomy procedures for acute ischemic stroke, according to an analysis of cases during 2008-2011 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
In-hospital mortality and rates for any complications were not associated with high or low endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT) volume at hospitals across the United States in the analysis of 13,502 adult patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke and treated with EMT, neurology resident Dr. Abhishek Lunagariya of the University of Florida, Gainesville, reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
A smaller prior study of 2,749 EMTs done in 296 hospitals in 2008 showed lower mortality in high-volume hospitals that performed 10 or more of the procedures per year (J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Nov; 22[8]:1263-9).
Of the 13,502 EMTs in the study, 25% occurred at low-volume hospitals performing less than 10 per year. Low-volume hospitals had higher in-hospital mortality than did higher-volume centers performing 10 or more of the procedures per year in an unadjusted comparison (26% vs. 21%). A comparison of a combined endpoint for any complications (in-hospital mortality, intracerebral hemorrhage, and vascular complications) was also significantly in favor of high-volume hospitals (34% vs. 30%).
However, in a multivariate hierarchical model, low-volume hospitals were not associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.23) or rate of any complications (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21). These analyses were adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, primary payer, median household income, hospital region/teaching status/location/bed size, Charlson Comorbidity Index, calendar year, and use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator.
Dr. Lunagariya noted that he and his associates could not adjust the comparisons for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores because they are not recorded in the National Inpatient Sample. They also could not examine what happened to patients after discharge.
Dr. Lunagariya suggested a variety of possible reasons that might help to explain the lack of an association between hospital procedure volume and outcomes after adjustment: the availability of better thrombectomy devices since the smaller 2008 study, lesser operator variability, favorable patient selection, and an increased skill set of operators working at low-volume hospitals.
One audience member noted that some endovascular interventionalists will operate at both high-volume and low-volume hospitals and could account for some of the findings. That indeed might be happening more often and needs to happen more often, Dr. Lunagariya said in an interview, in order to combat the “common belief” that it would be better to wait for a patient to undergo the procedure at a high- rather than low-volume hospital. Patients who receive initial care for stroke at a low-volume hospital but are not stable enough or do not have enough time to be transferred could benefit from EMT if an interventionalist who performs EMT drove there instead, he said.
With even newer devices now available that are thought to be easier to use, Dr. Lunagariya suggested that the similarity in outcomes at low- and higher-volume centers may not change in updated analyses of more recent EMT procedures for ischemic stroke.
The investigators received no funding for the study, and they reported having no financial disclosures.
VANCOUVER – The relationship between hospitals’ procedural volume and patient outcomes that has been observed for many cardiovascular interventions and other surgeries does not hold for endovascular mechanical thrombectomy procedures for acute ischemic stroke, according to an analysis of cases during 2008-2011 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
In-hospital mortality and rates for any complications were not associated with high or low endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT) volume at hospitals across the United States in the analysis of 13,502 adult patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke and treated with EMT, neurology resident Dr. Abhishek Lunagariya of the University of Florida, Gainesville, reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
A smaller prior study of 2,749 EMTs done in 296 hospitals in 2008 showed lower mortality in high-volume hospitals that performed 10 or more of the procedures per year (J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Nov; 22[8]:1263-9).
Of the 13,502 EMTs in the study, 25% occurred at low-volume hospitals performing less than 10 per year. Low-volume hospitals had higher in-hospital mortality than did higher-volume centers performing 10 or more of the procedures per year in an unadjusted comparison (26% vs. 21%). A comparison of a combined endpoint for any complications (in-hospital mortality, intracerebral hemorrhage, and vascular complications) was also significantly in favor of high-volume hospitals (34% vs. 30%).
However, in a multivariate hierarchical model, low-volume hospitals were not associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.23) or rate of any complications (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21). These analyses were adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, primary payer, median household income, hospital region/teaching status/location/bed size, Charlson Comorbidity Index, calendar year, and use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator.
Dr. Lunagariya noted that he and his associates could not adjust the comparisons for National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores because they are not recorded in the National Inpatient Sample. They also could not examine what happened to patients after discharge.
Dr. Lunagariya suggested a variety of possible reasons that might help to explain the lack of an association between hospital procedure volume and outcomes after adjustment: the availability of better thrombectomy devices since the smaller 2008 study, lesser operator variability, favorable patient selection, and an increased skill set of operators working at low-volume hospitals.
One audience member noted that some endovascular interventionalists will operate at both high-volume and low-volume hospitals and could account for some of the findings. That indeed might be happening more often and needs to happen more often, Dr. Lunagariya said in an interview, in order to combat the “common belief” that it would be better to wait for a patient to undergo the procedure at a high- rather than low-volume hospital. Patients who receive initial care for stroke at a low-volume hospital but are not stable enough or do not have enough time to be transferred could benefit from EMT if an interventionalist who performs EMT drove there instead, he said.
With even newer devices now available that are thought to be easier to use, Dr. Lunagariya suggested that the similarity in outcomes at low- and higher-volume centers may not change in updated analyses of more recent EMT procedures for ischemic stroke.
The investigators received no funding for the study, and they reported having no financial disclosures.
AT THE AAN 2016 ANNUAL MEETING
<p><b>Key clinical point: </b>Patient outcomes after endovascular mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke do not appear to be worse at low- versus high-volume hospitals.
</p><p><b>Major finding: </b>In a multivariate hierarchical model, low-volume hospitals (fewer than 10 thrombectomies per year) were not associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.23) or rate of any complications (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.76-1.21).
</p><p><b>Data source: </b>A retrospective review of 13,502 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular mechanical thrombectomy in 2008-2011.
</p><p><b>Disclosures:</b> The investigators received no funding for the study, and they reported having no financial disclosures.</p>
