Sara Freeman

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) do not appear to increase the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated in a real-world setting, suggested the results of a large, US-based, retrospective cohort study.

This holds true even in individuals aged 50 years or older, whose age puts them at increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, said Amina El Ayadi, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. He presented the findings at the recent European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

Specifically, the analysis looked at treatment with the oral JAK1 inhibitors upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo), both approved for treating AD in the United States, and found that the relative risk for MACE, such as acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, or acute deep vein thrombosis, was ≤ 1.0 compared with those not treated with a JAKi.

Similarly, the relative risk for other CV safety endpoints, such as having an abnormal ECG or pericardial effusion, was also around 1.0. There was a slight increase in the relative risk for arrhythmias, peripheral edema, angina pectoris, or heart failure, but no value went > 1.6 and CIs spanned 1.0, indicating the results lack statistical significance.
 

Reassurance for Dermatologists?

“This suggests that oral administration of these drugs to the patient with atopic dermatitis does not increase the risk of major adverse cardiac events, and dermatologists, based on our data, can safely consider JAK inhibitors for treating moderate to severe dermatitis, even in patients with high risk for these diseases,” El Ayadi said during a late-breaking news session at the meeting.

Yolanda Gilaberte Calzada, MD, PhD, head of the Dermatology Department at Miguel Servet University Hospital in Zaragoza, Spain, who was one of the chairs for the session, said that this was “very good news for us.”

Gilaberte Calzada, president of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, asked if there were any data on the duration of treatment with the two JAKis included in the analysis. El Ayadi said that this was something that would be looked at in future data analyses.

Gilaberte Calzada also observed that because the CIs were wide, with more time, “we will have more defined data.”
 

Analyses Overview

For the two analyses — one in the overall population of patients with AD and the other in those aged 50 years or older — electronic medical record (EMR) data from the TriNetX Research Network were used. This is a global, federated health research network that contains EMRs for more than 275 million patients from over 120 healthcare organizations, El Ayadi explained.

To perform the analyses, the research team queried the TriNetX database to find all patients diagnosed with AD via the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code L20. They then determined if patients had been treated with JAKi or not, and specifically, with upadacitinib or abrocitinib. Those who had not received any JAKi treatment were the control population.

For the first analysis, no age-specific filter was applied. The investigators identified 1674 people with AD who had been treated with the JAKis and around 1.2 million who had not. Propensity score matching, based on age at diagnosis, biologic sex, and CV comorbidities, was performed to give a total of 1674 patients who had and 1674 who had not been treated with these medications.

In the second analysis, only those aged 50 years or older were considered; 875 patients who had received JAKi treatment were identified and around 250,000 who had not. Propensity score matching based on the same variables gave two groups of 875 people who had or had not taken a JAKi.

Queried over the age cutoff used, El Ayadi noted, “We did an analysis looking at patients 65 and older. However, we came up with lower patient numbers. … We do have this data, and we did not see any significant risk.”

The study was independently supported. El Ayadi and Gilaberte Calzada reported no conflicts of interest in relation to the presented findings.

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

The Janus kinase inhibitor delgocitinib may be a better or comparable choice for treating hand eczema than some more established therapies, suggested the results of two separate studies presented during the late-breaking sessions at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

In the 24-week, phase 3 DELTA FORCE trial, topical delgocitinib was compared head to head with oral alitretinoin for managing chronic hand eczema (CHE). Results showed that greater improvements from baseline to week 12 in Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) scores could be achieved with delgocitinib cream than with alitretinoin capsules.

And in another analysis, which involved patients with the atopic subtype of CHE only, the application of topical delgocitinib was found to be as good as treatment with subcutaneous dupilumab (Dupixent) at improving both HECSI scores and the Investigator Global Assessment for CHE response (IGA-CHE).
 

Potentially a ‘Highly Impactful’ Therapy

“Chronic hand eczema is a common yet burdensome skin condition that poses a considerable challenge for dermatologists. Diversity in morphologic presentation and clinical etiology has been a key limitation for the development of a safe, targeted, one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach,” Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor at Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and the founder and director of the Center for Medical Dermatology and Immunology Research in Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

“These data show that delgocitinib cream is poised to be a novel and highly impactful topical therapy for the treatment of CHE,” said Chovatiya.

DELTA FORCE showed that the efficacy and safety of delgocitinib cream was “superior to alitretinoin, the only approved oral option for CHE,” he said. And the other study, a comparative analysis, showed that delgocitinib’s efficacy was “comparable to the biologic dupilumab specifically for the treatment of atopic hand eczema,” said Chovatiya, one of the authors of that study. He was not an author of the DELTA FORCE study.
 

DELTA FORCE

While it remains an investigational drug in the United States, where it is under Food and Drug Administration review for CHE, delgocitinib cream (Anzupgo) was recently approved by the European Commission for use in adults with moderate to severe hand eczema who do not respond to or who are unable to use topical corticosteroids. Approval was based on data from two phase 3 studies , DELTA 1 and DELTA 2, which compared delgocitinib cream against a cream vehicle, as well as an open-label, long-term extension study, DELTA 3.

In the DELTA FORCE study, 513 adults with severe CHE (IGA-CHE score of 4) were recruited at 102 clinical centers in Europe and North America and randomly allocated to topical treatment with delgocitinib cream, 20 mg/g applied twice daily, or alitretinoin capsules, 30 mg once daily. Treatment with delgocitinib was for 16 weeks, and treatment with alitretinoin was for 12 weeks. The latter’s dose could be reduced to 10 mg in the event of intolerability, and both treatments could be reintroduced if necessary, with a final follow-up at 24 weeks.

Study investigator Ana Maria Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, of the Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, who presented the findings, noted that alitretinoin (Toctino) is an oral systemic retinoid approved in a few European countries, Canada, Israel, and South Korea for the treatment of severe CHE.

The mean age of the participants was 45 years, almost two thirds were women, and the majority (93%) were White; 90% of patients had been recruited in Europe. The median duration of CHE was 4 years.

At baseline, the median HECSI score was recorded as 79.5 in the delgocitinib arm and 80.0 in the alitretinoin arm. At 12 weeks, the least squares mean change in HECSI score from baseline was –67.6 in the delgocitinib arm and –51.5 in the alitretinoin arm, giving a significant difference of –16.1 between the two groups (P < .001).

Giménez-Arnau reported that delgocitinib also outperformed alitretinoin for all other endpoints assessed, including the following: ≥ 90% improvement in HECSI (HECSI-90), IGA-CHE treatment success (defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear/almost clear skin), changes in Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD) itch and HESD pain scores, area under the curve for HECSI-90, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index score — which were all assessed at 12 weeks — and change in HECSI from baseline to week 24.

There was “significant improvement in the reduction of the HECSI from the first week” of treatment, Giménez-Arnau said at the meeting. Notably, that the effect increased to 12 weeks and then was sustained. A similar pattern was seen for IGA-CHE treatment success and for HESD pain. This is important as “chronic hand eczema is really painful,” she said.

As for safety, 49.4% of patients in the delgocitinib arm vs 76.1% of patients in the alitretinoin arm experienced any type of adverse event (AE). Serious AEs occurred in 2% and 4.9% of patients in each group, respectively, with fewer AEs leading to trial drug discontinuation observed in the delgocitinib arm (1.2% vs 10.1%). The proportion of AEs “probably or possibly” related to the trial drug was 9.5% in the delgocitinib group vs 54.3% in the alitretinoin group.
 

Comparison With Dupilumab in Another Trial

Delgocitinib is no longer just an investigational medication, April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor and chief of dermatology, University of California, Los Angeles, said during a separate late-breaking presentation at the EADV 2024 meeting. “I think it’s big news because now we have an important topical option for our patients with chronic hand eczema.”

Armstrong presented a matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of delgocitinib vs dupilumab for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic hand eczema, which she described as “the next best thing” to a head-to-head trial.

MAICs are where patient level data from one or more clinical trials evaluating drug “A” are compared with aggregate data from one or more clinical trials evaluating drug “B.” In this case, individual patient data from the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials of delgocitinib were compared with published aggregate data from the phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of dupilumab.

A total of 201 patients with atopic hand eczema in the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials were matched to 133 patients in the LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial. Of these, 128 had been treated with delgocitinib cream, 73 with a cream vehicle, 67 with subcutaneous dupilumab, and 66 with a subcutaneous placebo.

“We’re trying to compare as much as possible apples to apples here in terms of the etiology of hand eczema,” Armstrong said. She noted that after matching and weighting based on age, sex, race, and baseline HECSI score, baseline characteristics in the two groups of patients were similar. The mean age was about 35.8 years in the two active treatment arms and 33.4 years in the two placebo arms, and mean baseline HESCI scores were about 79-80.

The endpoints compared were ≥ 75% improvement in HECSI; HECSI-90, HECSI percentage improvement, and IGA-CHE in the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials; or a Hand and Foot IGA score of 0/1.

“The key message to take away from this is that there were no statistically significant differences between topical delgocitinib twice daily vs subcutaneous injection of dupilumab by week 16 in the treatment of patients with atopic hand dermatitis,” Armstrong reported. Odds ratios varied between 1.1 and 1.3 for the various endpoints.

Menno de Rie, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and immunology at Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who cochaired the session, said that “I appreciate very much that you took the effort to compare these totally different compounds and showed us the methodology that you did. It’s really very impressive.”
 

Topical, Systemic, or Both?

Armstrong was questioned on how to manage someone with atopic hand dermatitis who developed lesions elsewhere on the body.

“I would take a really individualized approach to this patient,” she responded. If the eczema has been limited to the hands and has been there for a while, then perhaps delgocitinib would be her choice, but if they developed lesions elsewhere on the body, then a systemic treatment such as dupilumab may be preferable.

“The good thing is that this study shows that you can offer the patient either of those options and really engage the patient in a shared decision-making process.”

And with regards to whether the two might possibly be used together, Armstrong acknowledged insurance coverage restrictions could be a limiting factor in the United States, but elsewhere — and from a scientific point of view — this could make sense.

“If we have a patient, for example, who has moderate to severe atopic dermatitis involving the body, but also very severe hand eczema as well, one may possibly consider a combination of a systemic medication that’s helpful for the extensive area of involvement on the body ... and now you have a topical therapy, delgocitinib, where you can use it locally, have very deep efficacy locally, to kind of help augment that disease phenotype in that patient population.”

The studies were funded by Leo Pharma. Chovatiya, Giménez-Arnau, and Armstrong acknowledged ties to LEO Pharma, among other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The Janus kinase inhibitor delgocitinib may be a better or comparable choice for treating hand eczema than some more established therapies, suggested the results of two separate studies presented during the late-breaking sessions at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

In the 24-week, phase 3 DELTA FORCE trial, topical delgocitinib was compared head to head with oral alitretinoin for managing chronic hand eczema (CHE). Results showed that greater improvements from baseline to week 12 in Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) scores could be achieved with delgocitinib cream than with alitretinoin capsules.

And in another analysis, which involved patients with the atopic subtype of CHE only, the application of topical delgocitinib was found to be as good as treatment with subcutaneous dupilumab (Dupixent) at improving both HECSI scores and the Investigator Global Assessment for CHE response (IGA-CHE).
 

Potentially a ‘Highly Impactful’ Therapy

“Chronic hand eczema is a common yet burdensome skin condition that poses a considerable challenge for dermatologists. Diversity in morphologic presentation and clinical etiology has been a key limitation for the development of a safe, targeted, one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach,” Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor at Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and the founder and director of the Center for Medical Dermatology and Immunology Research in Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

“These data show that delgocitinib cream is poised to be a novel and highly impactful topical therapy for the treatment of CHE,” said Chovatiya.

DELTA FORCE showed that the efficacy and safety of delgocitinib cream was “superior to alitretinoin, the only approved oral option for CHE,” he said. And the other study, a comparative analysis, showed that delgocitinib’s efficacy was “comparable to the biologic dupilumab specifically for the treatment of atopic hand eczema,” said Chovatiya, one of the authors of that study. He was not an author of the DELTA FORCE study.
 

DELTA FORCE

While it remains an investigational drug in the United States, where it is under Food and Drug Administration review for CHE, delgocitinib cream (Anzupgo) was recently approved by the European Commission for use in adults with moderate to severe hand eczema who do not respond to or who are unable to use topical corticosteroids. Approval was based on data from two phase 3 studies , DELTA 1 and DELTA 2, which compared delgocitinib cream against a cream vehicle, as well as an open-label, long-term extension study, DELTA 3.

In the DELTA FORCE study, 513 adults with severe CHE (IGA-CHE score of 4) were recruited at 102 clinical centers in Europe and North America and randomly allocated to topical treatment with delgocitinib cream, 20 mg/g applied twice daily, or alitretinoin capsules, 30 mg once daily. Treatment with delgocitinib was for 16 weeks, and treatment with alitretinoin was for 12 weeks. The latter’s dose could be reduced to 10 mg in the event of intolerability, and both treatments could be reintroduced if necessary, with a final follow-up at 24 weeks.

Study investigator Ana Maria Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, of the Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, who presented the findings, noted that alitretinoin (Toctino) is an oral systemic retinoid approved in a few European countries, Canada, Israel, and South Korea for the treatment of severe CHE.

The mean age of the participants was 45 years, almost two thirds were women, and the majority (93%) were White; 90% of patients had been recruited in Europe. The median duration of CHE was 4 years.

At baseline, the median HECSI score was recorded as 79.5 in the delgocitinib arm and 80.0 in the alitretinoin arm. At 12 weeks, the least squares mean change in HECSI score from baseline was –67.6 in the delgocitinib arm and –51.5 in the alitretinoin arm, giving a significant difference of –16.1 between the two groups (P < .001).

Giménez-Arnau reported that delgocitinib also outperformed alitretinoin for all other endpoints assessed, including the following: ≥ 90% improvement in HECSI (HECSI-90), IGA-CHE treatment success (defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear/almost clear skin), changes in Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD) itch and HESD pain scores, area under the curve for HECSI-90, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index score — which were all assessed at 12 weeks — and change in HECSI from baseline to week 24.

There was “significant improvement in the reduction of the HECSI from the first week” of treatment, Giménez-Arnau said at the meeting. Notably, that the effect increased to 12 weeks and then was sustained. A similar pattern was seen for IGA-CHE treatment success and for HESD pain. This is important as “chronic hand eczema is really painful,” she said.

As for safety, 49.4% of patients in the delgocitinib arm vs 76.1% of patients in the alitretinoin arm experienced any type of adverse event (AE). Serious AEs occurred in 2% and 4.9% of patients in each group, respectively, with fewer AEs leading to trial drug discontinuation observed in the delgocitinib arm (1.2% vs 10.1%). The proportion of AEs “probably or possibly” related to the trial drug was 9.5% in the delgocitinib group vs 54.3% in the alitretinoin group.
 

Comparison With Dupilumab in Another Trial

Delgocitinib is no longer just an investigational medication, April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor and chief of dermatology, University of California, Los Angeles, said during a separate late-breaking presentation at the EADV 2024 meeting. “I think it’s big news because now we have an important topical option for our patients with chronic hand eczema.”

Armstrong presented a matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of delgocitinib vs dupilumab for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic hand eczema, which she described as “the next best thing” to a head-to-head trial.

MAICs are where patient level data from one or more clinical trials evaluating drug “A” are compared with aggregate data from one or more clinical trials evaluating drug “B.” In this case, individual patient data from the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials of delgocitinib were compared with published aggregate data from the phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of dupilumab.

A total of 201 patients with atopic hand eczema in the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials were matched to 133 patients in the LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial. Of these, 128 had been treated with delgocitinib cream, 73 with a cream vehicle, 67 with subcutaneous dupilumab, and 66 with a subcutaneous placebo.

“We’re trying to compare as much as possible apples to apples here in terms of the etiology of hand eczema,” Armstrong said. She noted that after matching and weighting based on age, sex, race, and baseline HECSI score, baseline characteristics in the two groups of patients were similar. The mean age was about 35.8 years in the two active treatment arms and 33.4 years in the two placebo arms, and mean baseline HESCI scores were about 79-80.

The endpoints compared were ≥ 75% improvement in HECSI; HECSI-90, HECSI percentage improvement, and IGA-CHE in the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials; or a Hand and Foot IGA score of 0/1.

“The key message to take away from this is that there were no statistically significant differences between topical delgocitinib twice daily vs subcutaneous injection of dupilumab by week 16 in the treatment of patients with atopic hand dermatitis,” Armstrong reported. Odds ratios varied between 1.1 and 1.3 for the various endpoints.

Menno de Rie, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and immunology at Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who cochaired the session, said that “I appreciate very much that you took the effort to compare these totally different compounds and showed us the methodology that you did. It’s really very impressive.”
 

Topical, Systemic, or Both?

Armstrong was questioned on how to manage someone with atopic hand dermatitis who developed lesions elsewhere on the body.

“I would take a really individualized approach to this patient,” she responded. If the eczema has been limited to the hands and has been there for a while, then perhaps delgocitinib would be her choice, but if they developed lesions elsewhere on the body, then a systemic treatment such as dupilumab may be preferable.

“The good thing is that this study shows that you can offer the patient either of those options and really engage the patient in a shared decision-making process.”

And with regards to whether the two might possibly be used together, Armstrong acknowledged insurance coverage restrictions could be a limiting factor in the United States, but elsewhere — and from a scientific point of view — this could make sense.

“If we have a patient, for example, who has moderate to severe atopic dermatitis involving the body, but also very severe hand eczema as well, one may possibly consider a combination of a systemic medication that’s helpful for the extensive area of involvement on the body ... and now you have a topical therapy, delgocitinib, where you can use it locally, have very deep efficacy locally, to kind of help augment that disease phenotype in that patient population.”

The studies were funded by Leo Pharma. Chovatiya, Giménez-Arnau, and Armstrong acknowledged ties to LEO Pharma, among other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The Janus kinase inhibitor delgocitinib may be a better or comparable choice for treating hand eczema than some more established therapies, suggested the results of two separate studies presented during the late-breaking sessions at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

In the 24-week, phase 3 DELTA FORCE trial, topical delgocitinib was compared head to head with oral alitretinoin for managing chronic hand eczema (CHE). Results showed that greater improvements from baseline to week 12 in Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) scores could be achieved with delgocitinib cream than with alitretinoin capsules.

And in another analysis, which involved patients with the atopic subtype of CHE only, the application of topical delgocitinib was found to be as good as treatment with subcutaneous dupilumab (Dupixent) at improving both HECSI scores and the Investigator Global Assessment for CHE response (IGA-CHE).
 

Potentially a ‘Highly Impactful’ Therapy

“Chronic hand eczema is a common yet burdensome skin condition that poses a considerable challenge for dermatologists. Diversity in morphologic presentation and clinical etiology has been a key limitation for the development of a safe, targeted, one-size-fits-all therapeutic approach,” Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor at Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and the founder and director of the Center for Medical Dermatology and Immunology Research in Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

“These data show that delgocitinib cream is poised to be a novel and highly impactful topical therapy for the treatment of CHE,” said Chovatiya.

DELTA FORCE showed that the efficacy and safety of delgocitinib cream was “superior to alitretinoin, the only approved oral option for CHE,” he said. And the other study, a comparative analysis, showed that delgocitinib’s efficacy was “comparable to the biologic dupilumab specifically for the treatment of atopic hand eczema,” said Chovatiya, one of the authors of that study. He was not an author of the DELTA FORCE study.
 

DELTA FORCE

While it remains an investigational drug in the United States, where it is under Food and Drug Administration review for CHE, delgocitinib cream (Anzupgo) was recently approved by the European Commission for use in adults with moderate to severe hand eczema who do not respond to or who are unable to use topical corticosteroids. Approval was based on data from two phase 3 studies , DELTA 1 and DELTA 2, which compared delgocitinib cream against a cream vehicle, as well as an open-label, long-term extension study, DELTA 3.

In the DELTA FORCE study, 513 adults with severe CHE (IGA-CHE score of 4) were recruited at 102 clinical centers in Europe and North America and randomly allocated to topical treatment with delgocitinib cream, 20 mg/g applied twice daily, or alitretinoin capsules, 30 mg once daily. Treatment with delgocitinib was for 16 weeks, and treatment with alitretinoin was for 12 weeks. The latter’s dose could be reduced to 10 mg in the event of intolerability, and both treatments could be reintroduced if necessary, with a final follow-up at 24 weeks.

Study investigator Ana Maria Giménez-Arnau, MD, PhD, of the Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, who presented the findings, noted that alitretinoin (Toctino) is an oral systemic retinoid approved in a few European countries, Canada, Israel, and South Korea for the treatment of severe CHE.

The mean age of the participants was 45 years, almost two thirds were women, and the majority (93%) were White; 90% of patients had been recruited in Europe. The median duration of CHE was 4 years.

At baseline, the median HECSI score was recorded as 79.5 in the delgocitinib arm and 80.0 in the alitretinoin arm. At 12 weeks, the least squares mean change in HECSI score from baseline was –67.6 in the delgocitinib arm and –51.5 in the alitretinoin arm, giving a significant difference of –16.1 between the two groups (P < .001).

Giménez-Arnau reported that delgocitinib also outperformed alitretinoin for all other endpoints assessed, including the following: ≥ 90% improvement in HECSI (HECSI-90), IGA-CHE treatment success (defined as a score of 0/1 indicating clear/almost clear skin), changes in Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD) itch and HESD pain scores, area under the curve for HECSI-90, change in Dermatology Life Quality Index score — which were all assessed at 12 weeks — and change in HECSI from baseline to week 24.

There was “significant improvement in the reduction of the HECSI from the first week” of treatment, Giménez-Arnau said at the meeting. Notably, that the effect increased to 12 weeks and then was sustained. A similar pattern was seen for IGA-CHE treatment success and for HESD pain. This is important as “chronic hand eczema is really painful,” she said.

As for safety, 49.4% of patients in the delgocitinib arm vs 76.1% of patients in the alitretinoin arm experienced any type of adverse event (AE). Serious AEs occurred in 2% and 4.9% of patients in each group, respectively, with fewer AEs leading to trial drug discontinuation observed in the delgocitinib arm (1.2% vs 10.1%). The proportion of AEs “probably or possibly” related to the trial drug was 9.5% in the delgocitinib group vs 54.3% in the alitretinoin group.
 

Comparison With Dupilumab in Another Trial

Delgocitinib is no longer just an investigational medication, April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor and chief of dermatology, University of California, Los Angeles, said during a separate late-breaking presentation at the EADV 2024 meeting. “I think it’s big news because now we have an important topical option for our patients with chronic hand eczema.”

Armstrong presented a matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of delgocitinib vs dupilumab for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic hand eczema, which she described as “the next best thing” to a head-to-head trial.

MAICs are where patient level data from one or more clinical trials evaluating drug “A” are compared with aggregate data from one or more clinical trials evaluating drug “B.” In this case, individual patient data from the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials of delgocitinib were compared with published aggregate data from the phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of dupilumab.

A total of 201 patients with atopic hand eczema in the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials were matched to 133 patients in the LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial. Of these, 128 had been treated with delgocitinib cream, 73 with a cream vehicle, 67 with subcutaneous dupilumab, and 66 with a subcutaneous placebo.

“We’re trying to compare as much as possible apples to apples here in terms of the etiology of hand eczema,” Armstrong said. She noted that after matching and weighting based on age, sex, race, and baseline HECSI score, baseline characteristics in the two groups of patients were similar. The mean age was about 35.8 years in the two active treatment arms and 33.4 years in the two placebo arms, and mean baseline HESCI scores were about 79-80.

The endpoints compared were ≥ 75% improvement in HECSI; HECSI-90, HECSI percentage improvement, and IGA-CHE in the DELTA 1 and DELTA 2 trials; or a Hand and Foot IGA score of 0/1.

“The key message to take away from this is that there were no statistically significant differences between topical delgocitinib twice daily vs subcutaneous injection of dupilumab by week 16 in the treatment of patients with atopic hand dermatitis,” Armstrong reported. Odds ratios varied between 1.1 and 1.3 for the various endpoints.

Menno de Rie, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and immunology at Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who cochaired the session, said that “I appreciate very much that you took the effort to compare these totally different compounds and showed us the methodology that you did. It’s really very impressive.”
 

Topical, Systemic, or Both?

Armstrong was questioned on how to manage someone with atopic hand dermatitis who developed lesions elsewhere on the body.

“I would take a really individualized approach to this patient,” she responded. If the eczema has been limited to the hands and has been there for a while, then perhaps delgocitinib would be her choice, but if they developed lesions elsewhere on the body, then a systemic treatment such as dupilumab may be preferable.

“The good thing is that this study shows that you can offer the patient either of those options and really engage the patient in a shared decision-making process.”

And with regards to whether the two might possibly be used together, Armstrong acknowledged insurance coverage restrictions could be a limiting factor in the United States, but elsewhere — and from a scientific point of view — this could make sense.

“If we have a patient, for example, who has moderate to severe atopic dermatitis involving the body, but also very severe hand eczema as well, one may possibly consider a combination of a systemic medication that’s helpful for the extensive area of involvement on the body ... and now you have a topical therapy, delgocitinib, where you can use it locally, have very deep efficacy locally, to kind of help augment that disease phenotype in that patient population.”

The studies were funded by Leo Pharma. Chovatiya, Giménez-Arnau, and Armstrong acknowledged ties to LEO Pharma, among other pharmaceutical companies.

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

For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. 

In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.

Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”

Charlotte Dahl, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital

The PROHIP Study

THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived. 

The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training. 

Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.

However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged. 
 

Design and Study Population

The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points. 

After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years. 

The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group. 

Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization. 

The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction. 
 

‘Reassuring’ Results

In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”

THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.

Dr. Palmer

Resistance Training Role 

A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.

This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy. 

It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.

Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
 

Authors’ View

The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”

Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors. 

Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.

“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said. 

“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.

The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

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

For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. 

In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.

Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”

Charlotte Dahl, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital

The PROHIP Study

THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived. 

The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training. 

Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.

However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged. 
 

Design and Study Population

The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points. 

After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years. 

The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group. 

Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization. 

The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction. 
 

‘Reassuring’ Results

In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”

THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.

Dr. Palmer

Resistance Training Role 

A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.

This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy. 

It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.

Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
 

Authors’ View

The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”

Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors. 

Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.

“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said. 

“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.

The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

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

For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. 

In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.

Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.

“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”

Charlotte Dahl, Lillebaelt Hospital–University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital

The PROHIP Study

THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived. 

The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training. 

Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.

However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged. 
 

Design and Study Population

The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points. 

After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years. 

The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group. 

Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization. 

The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction. 
 

‘Reassuring’ Results

In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”

THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.

Dr. Palmer

Resistance Training Role 

A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.

This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy. 

It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.

Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
 

Authors’ View

The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”

Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors. 

Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.

“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said. 

“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.

The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

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

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new serum containing 2-mercaptonicotinoyl glycine (Melasyl) as its main ingredient was at least as good as, if not better than, cysteamine 5% cream in treating facial melasma in a randomized controlled study presented at the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) 2024 Congress.

“Melasyl is a new potent melanogenesis inhibitor that exhibits a unique mode of action while preserving melanocyte integrity,” Mukta Sachdev, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology at Manipal Hospital in Bangalore, India, said at a late-breaking news session.

Both the serum and the cysteamine cream lightened participants’ skin to a similar extent, according to the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), with respective reductions of 4.19 and 3.81 points over a period of 4 months from baseline values of 11.15 and 10.93. 

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

The mMASI score ranges from 0 to 24, with the lowest score representing the least and the highest score the most severe hyperpigmentation of the skin.

But the serum performed better than the cream by another measure. Judged by investigators blinded to which preparation study participants had been using, there was a significantly higher reduction in the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score from baseline among those treated with the serum than among those treated with the cream (−51.85% vs −39.06%; P = .0163). 

Moreover, after 4 months of treatment, there were significantly more participants with clear or almost clear skin with the serum than with the cream (17.46% vs 7.81%; P = .0163), Sachdev reported.

Other skin parameters relative to melasma, such as the brightness of skin tone and evenness of the improvement, improved more in the participants using the serum vs cream, she said. 

With “no side effects, no local skin reactions,” Sachdev said, “quality of life improved significantly and similarly, and almost all subjects in both groups were very satisfied with their treatment options.”
 

Active Ingredients

Margarida Gonçalo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at the University of Coimbra, in Portugal, who co-chaired the late-breaking news session, commented: “It’s really nice to have new products to treat such a devastating disease.”

Session co-chair, Lidia Rudnicka, MD, head of the Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Warsaw, in Poland, and president of the Polish Dermatological Society, wanted to know more about the active ingredients of the serum and the study’s design. 

Sachdev replied that the serum also contains other ingredients that provide “antioxidant protection” and moisturization. These include retinyl palmitate, which works on the dermal-epidermal junction, and hyaluronic acid, as well as “soothing agents,” such as the medicinal herb Centella asiatica, she said.
 

Study Design

Conducted at a single center in India, the study involved 127 adults aged 20-50 years with melasma. For inclusion, the participants had to have facial epidermal or mixed melasma (phototypes III-V) for more than 1 year; those with dermal melasma were excluded. 

Participants were randomly allocated to receive either the serum, which was applied topically to the areas of interest twice a day in the morning and then at bedtime (n = 63), or cysteamine cream (n = 64), which was applied once a day in addition to a neutral moisturizer. Treatment was for 4 months, with an on-site visit every month. 

All participants were supplied with the same sunscreen/ultraviolet protector applied twice a day (once in the morning and again at midday) and a neutral hydrating cleanser that was used in the morning and evening. 
 

Practical Implications

Over 4 months, both products showed significant improvement in melasma without reaching a plateau, Sachdev reported, with the serum demonstrating superior efficacy and tolerability, as judged by the investigators. 

The study suggests that the serum is a promising non-hydroquinone treatment for melasma, she said. Hydroquinone-containing topical preparations are used to depigment the skin, but their long-term use can be limited for safety reasons. 

“When products like this demonstrate improvement, it is something for the dermatologist to think about because we now have newer ingredients, which are safer and well tolerated,” she continued, noting that there appeared to be no risk for exogenous ochronosis, which can occur with long-term application of hydroquinone.

“So, I think the armamentarium of non-hydroquinone products for the treatment of melasma is rapidly expanding, and there are studies now with clinically proven efficacy,” Sachdev concluded. 

The study was supported by L’Oréal France La Roche-Posay, which launched Melasyl in March 2024. Sachdev reported receipt of research support and honoraria from the company. Gonçalo and Rudnicka were not involved in the study and had no relevant conflicts of interest to report. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

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

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

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

TOPLINE:

Home-based phototherapy for plaque and guttate psoriasis is as effective as office-based phototherapy, according to results of the randomized Light Treatment Effectiveness study.

METHODOLOGY:

• The pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy administered at home (n = 393) vs at the doctor’s office (n = 390).
• Overall, 783 patients with plaque or guttate psoriasis (mean age, 48 years; 48% women) were enrolled at 42 academic and private clinical dermatology practices in the United States from March 1, 2019, to December 4, 2023, and were followed up through June 2024. At baseline, the mean Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and the mean Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were 2.7 and 12.2, respectively.
• The two co-primary endpoints were a PGA score ≤ 1 indicating clear or almost clear skin and a DLQI score ≤ 5.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 weeks, a PGA score ≤ 1 was achieved in 32.8% of patients using home-based phototherapy and in 25.6% of those who received office-based phototherapy (P < .001).
• At 12 weeks, a DLQI score ≤ 5 was achieved in 52.4% and 33.6% of home- and office-treated patients, respectively (P < .001).
• Similar benefits were seen across all Fitzpatrick skin types.
• A higher percentage of patients were adherent to home-based (51.4%) vs office-based (15.9%) phototherapy (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“These data support the use of home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for psoriasis,” and “efforts are needed to make home and office phototherapy more available to patients,” said the study’s lead author.

SOURCE:

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, presented the findings at the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis meeting during the annual meeting of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, with simultaneous publication in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

This was an open-label trial and because of its pragmatic design, outcome data were missing. The cost of the home-based phototherapy equipment used in the study was $6040.88, which was mostly covered by Medicare, but direct costs to patients may have varied depending on their insurance plan.

DISCLOSURES:

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the study. Daavlin provided and shipped machines for home-based phototherapy to patients at no cost. Dr. Gelfand disclosed serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Artax, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, and other companies. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the published study.

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — Nipocalimab, iscalimab, and tibulizumab, but not lusvertikimab, appear to be promising new agents for Sjögren disease that warrant further investigation, suggest the results of four separate early clinical trials reported at the recent annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR).

This is potentially good news for patients, as discovering new treatments that work for managing the various symptoms of Sjögren disease is a high priority, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, MD, PhD, said when he presented the results of the phase 2 DAHLIAS study of nipocalimab during a late-breaking abstract session.

“All patients suffer from high burden of symptoms — pain, fatigue, and dryness; nearly 50% of patients have systemic complications; mortality is increased, so there is a high unmet need since no specific drug has been accepted so far,” said Dr. Gottenberg, who works at Strasbourg University Hospital in Strasbourg, France.

“The pathogenesis of the disease involves high B-cell activation, resulting in high IgG levels, and secretion of autoantibodies,” such as anti-Ro, anti-La, anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type A (anti-SSA), and anti-Sjögren’s syndrome type B antibodies, Dr. Gottenberg said.

Thus, one approach to reducing the disease burden is to try to lower circulating immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and IgG-associated autoantibodies, which is how the monoclonal antibody nipocalimab works. Nipocalimab essentially blocks the interaction of IgG with the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor and has already been shown to have efficacy in other autoimmune conditions such as myasthenia gravis and fetal and neonatal hemolytic disease, although not as hoped in rheumatoid arthritis.
 

The DAHLIAS Phase 2 Study

Now, results from the DAHLIAS study show that nipocalimab may also work in Sjögren disease, with significant improvement vs placebo seen in the primary endpoint of the total EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (clinESSDAI) at 24 weeks for one of the two doses of the drug that were tested.

The multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was conducted in 163 patients with moderate to severely active primary Sjögren disease. The latter was determined by having a clinESSDAI of 6 or higher and seropositivity for anti-Ro60, anti-Ro52, or both autoantibodies.

Dr. Gottenberg reported that the mean age of patients was 48 years; the majority (92.6%) were women and of White ethnicity (90.8%). The baseline clinESSDAI was a mean of 9.9; 98.1% had anti-Ro60, 80.6% had anti-Ro52, and 71.9% had anti-La antibodies.

In addition to standard of care, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous treatment every 2 weeks with nipocalimab 5 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg, or placebo.

At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) change in clinESSDAI from baseline was −3.74 for placebo, −4.08 for nipocalimab 5 mg/kg (P = not significant vs placebo), and −6.40 for nipocalimab 15 mg/kg (P = .02 vs placebo).

Nipocalimab 15 mg/kg also “demonstrated similar and consistent trends in other key efficacy endpoints,” Dr. Gottenberg said. This included improvements in the ESSDAI and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and composite measures such as the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR), Composite of Relevant Endpoints for Sjögren’s Syndrome (CRESS), and the Disease Activity Level. There were also improvements in the unstimulated salivary flow rate.

Safety findings showed no new concerns, with adverse events reported in 62.5% of placebo-treated patients and by 79.2% and 79.6% of patients receiving nipocalimab 5 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported in a respective 5.4%, 7.5%, and 7.4%, including severe infections or infections requiring intravenous anti-infectives in 1.8%, 3.8%, and 1.9% of participants, although none was thought to be related to the study treatment. No opportunistic infections or any deaths were reported.

Thomas Schindler, PhD, senior clinical scientist at F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., in Basel, Switzerland, commented from the audience: “This was a very impressive set of results, and I’m very surprised that its safety profile is so benign.”

Dr. Schindler wanted to know if there were any changes in the serum albumin level and if this manifested as any laboratory abnormalities, but there were no reported cases of severe hypoalbuminemia in the study.
 

The TWINSS Phase 2 Study

Similarly hopeful results were reported for iscalimab, a fully human IgG1 anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody that is given by subcutaneous injection, during a clinical abstracts session. Xavier Mariette, MD, PhD, head of the Rheumatology Department at Bicêtre Hospital, Paris-Saclay University in Paris, France, reported updated results of the phase 2b dose-ranging TWINSS study, showing sustained benefits at 48 weeks. The primary endpoint results at 24 weeks were recently published in The Lancet.

TWINSS was set up to assess the safety and efficacy of iscalimab given every 2 weeks vs placebo in two distinct cohorts of patients with Sjögren disease — one with moderate to severe disease with both systemic and symptomatic involvement and the other with low systemic involvement but high symptom burden.

Whereas patients in the first cohort who had moderate to severe disease (n = 173) were randomly allocated to one of three doses (150, 300, and 600 mg) of iscalimab or placebo for the initial 24 weeks, those in the second cohort (n = 100) were randomly allocated to a 600-mg dose or placebo. After the double-blind period ended, patients taking iscalimab continued on the dose they were taking for another 24 weeks, with those in the placebo arms switching to the 600-mg dose in cohort 1 and the 300-mg dose in cohort 2.

Topline results for those in cohort 1 with moderate to severe Sjögren disease were that the significant improvements in ESSDAI that had been seen at week 24 were maintained in those who continued iscalimab and improved in those who had switched from placebo.

LSM change from baseline in ESSDAI vs placebo at week 24 had been −3.0, −1.4, and −2.9 for the 150-, 300-, and 600-mg doses of iscalimab, respectively. Results at week 48 were a respective −7.6, −5.7, and −7.9. The LSM change for the placebo-treated patients who had switched to the 600-mg dose was −6.7.

Dr. Mariette reported “consistent improvement” in patient-reported outcomes, including ESSPRI, the Sjögren’s Syndrome Symptom Diary, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue measure, and the Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life instrument. There was also a significant improvement in stimulated salivary flow rates.

Similar benefits were seen in the second cohort of patients who did not have systemic involvement but had a high burden of symptoms, with improved ESSPRI scores of a LSM change from baseline vs placebo of −2.29 for patients continuing iscalimab 600 mg treatment and −1.14 for those taking the 300-mg dose after being treated with placebo. Improvements were also seen in the other patient-reported outcomes used.

Regarding safety, Dr. Mariette reported that there were “no specific issues” seen in the patients who switched from placebo to iscalimab, either at the 300-mg or 600-mg dose. Any adverse event occurred in around 80% of placebo-treated patients and roughly 90% of those given iscalimab, and serious adverse events occurred in 11.4%, 14.3%, and 11.4% pf patients treated with iscalimab 150, 300, and 600 mg, and 4.9% of those given placebo and then 600 mg iscalimab.

“The safety seems equivalent to patients having received iscalimab from the beginning of the trial,” Dr. Mariette said, adding “the risk-benefit [analysis] seems positive in patients up to week 48.”
 

Phase 1 Trial of Tibulizumab

Further positive early trial results were reported by Michael Howell, PhD, chief scientific officer for Zura Bio, a biotech company based in Henderson, Nevada. During a poster tour at EULAR 2024, Dr. Howell presented some preliminary findings from a phase 1 trial of tibulizumab, a dual antagonist of interleukin (IL)-17A and the B-cell–activating factor (BAFF) engineered by fusing elements of ixekizumab (Taltz) and tabalumab together.

“The headline result for me is that the molecule does what it’s supposed to,” Dr. Howell told this news organization. “We have potent engagement of the IL-17 and BAFF pathways, and this sets the tone for additional exploration in rheumatologic diseases where there’s known activation of those two pathways,” he said.

Dr. Howell reported that total B-cell counts and lower levels of type 1 T helper cells were seen during the trial.

Over the years, Dr. Howell, an immunologist, has been involved in the development of many therapeutics, such as risankizumab (Skyrizi) and spesolimab (Spevigo).

“When I look at the molecules and the opportunity we have to do broader antagonism of pathways in a safe aspect, this is probably one of the most exciting,” he said.

The trial he presented included 25 people with a confirmed diagnosis of Sjögren disease and anti-SSA or anti-SSB antibodies. Patients received tibulizumab or a placebo for a total of 12 weeks via a subcutaneous injection. Various doses were tested: 30 mg, 100 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 300 mg every 2 weeks.

Serum levels of both BAFF and IL-17A increased as expected in the tibulizumab-treated patients, and Dr. Howell reported that “it’s well tolerated. There’s no adverse event profile that caused any concern.”

As a phase 1 study, it was not powered to look at efficacy, but there were positive signals, Dr. Howell said, meaning that the drug is likely to be tested further in a phase 2 trial.
 

Lusvertikimab Phase 2 Trial

During the same poster tour, the null findings of a phase 2 trial of the anti-IL-7 monoclonal antibody lusvertikimab were presented by Benjamin Fisher, MD, professor of rheumatology at Birmingham University in Birmingham, England.

Dr. Fisher told this news organization: “It’s a negative study, at least over the 3-month period that we’ve studied it.” Whether longer durations of treatment may be needed is a question that currently cannot be answered, he added.

A total of 48 patients with Sjögren disease had been included in the trial from 19 different centers in Europe, the United States, and Australia. The mean age of the participants was 53.7 years, 87% were women, and the mean duration of disease was 5.0 years. Baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI were 12.1 and 7.0, respectively. Half were receiving other background treatment, and 72.9% were anti-Ro or anti-SSA positive.

Lusvertikimab 750 mg or a matching placebo was given via intravenous infusion at weeks 0, 2, 4, 7, and 10.

The primary endpoint was the mean change in ESSDAI from baseline to week 13, which was the same, at −3.9, in both groups. There was also no significant difference between the groups in any of the other secondary endpoints that were used, including ESSPRI, Schirmer’s test, the ocular staining score, salivary flow rate, physician and patient global assessment, assessment of fatigue, quality of life, or the composite measures STAR and CRESS.

“This isn’t going anywhere,” said Dr. Fisher, asking what was going to happen next and if this meant the end of IL-7-focused therapy.

“For years, there’s been quite a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Fisher said. Sjögren disease is characterized by a sort of focal inflammation of the saliva glands, which is composed of both T and B cells in the early stages, probably a T-cell component and a B-cell component, he explained.

“IL-7 is thought to be an important cytokine for homeostasis of the T-cell compartment, so for maintenance of T central memory and effector memory cells,” he said. “So, the idea is that, if you block IL-7, you switch off T cells, and you may rebalance the immune system towards a more regulatory phenotype. Just that it didn’t work,” Dr. Fisher said.

“There’s large unmet need,” he said. “Sjögren’s is associated with poor health-related quality of life, [and] a large part that is symptom-driven — dryness and fatigue — which we have no real interventions yet for patients; there’s no licensed therapeutics for it.”

Dr. Fisher cited ianalumab as one of the front-runners for becoming the first licensed treatment for Sjögren disease. The novel BAFF-targeting antibody is already in phase 3 trials and is also showing promise for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Then there are CD40-targeting drugs; the ones most advanced are dazodalibep and iscalimab.” Commenting on the potential of iscalimab, Dr. Fisher said that it “seems to work — it improves systemic disease activity; it also leads to some symptomatic improvement, which has been difficult to demonstrate in Sjögren’s.”

Dr. Fisher added that “the nipocalimab data looks interesting, as do data on TYK2 inhibition.”

The DAHLIAS study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gottenberg has consulted for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. The TWINSS study was funded by Novartis. Dr. Mariette has consulted for BMS, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. The tibulizumab phase 1 study was funded by Eli Lilly & Company. Dr. Howell is an employee of the developer, Zura Bio. The Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier sponsored the lusvertikimab trial. Dr. Fisher has consulted for Novartis, Roche, BMS, Galapagos, Janssen, Servier, UCB, and Sanofi and received funding to his institution for collaborative research from Janssen, Celgene, Galapagos, and Servier.
 

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

VIENNA — It may have been a while since there have been any major breakthroughs in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but there are high hopes that this is a situation that may be about to change, experts agreed at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“It’s an incredibly vivid area of development,” Laurent Arnaud, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Strasbourg in Strasbourg, France, said during one of the first sessions of the meeting. He reported that there were at least 17 phase 2 and 14 phase 3 trials that were expected to start within the next few years, all with investigational agents that target different immune cells or pathways that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

In a systematic review published last year, Dr. Arnaud and coauthors found that there were 92 investigational biologic or novel targeted agents in various phases of clinical testing. This included B-cell–targeting agents such as ianalumab, plasma cell-targeting agents such as daratumumab, and drugs with novel mechanisms of action such as KPG-818, which targets the CRL4-Cereblon (CRBN) E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. Phase 2 data on all three of these investigational agents were presented during various sessions at EULAR 2024, all with positive results, suggesting that their further development in SLE is worth pursuing.

There are of course “many more candidates in the pipeline,” Dr. Arnaud said. “I’m very happy that I think we are going to see great days for lupus right in front of our eyes.”
 

Targeting B Cells

Drugs that target B cells have been at the forefront of lupus treatment for several years, as David Isenberg, MD, professor of rheumatology at University College London, pointed out during an interview for EULAR TV.

“It’s clearly important to target the cells which are likely to be causing the problem in lupus, and in the main, that tends to be B cells,” he said.

Dr. Isenberg, who is renowned for his work with the B-cell–targeting agent rituximab, added: “But we know that obviously T cells integrate with B cells, so anything which interrupts the link between the T cell and the B cell is likely to be important.”
 

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy ‘Revolution’

One new way of targeting B cells is with CAR T-cell therapy, which David D’Cruz , MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist for Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, picked as one of the “most striking” topics highlighted at EULAR 2024.

This is “truly personalized medicine,” Dr. D’Cruz said. This is an autologous therapy because a patient’s T cells are removed by leukapheresis, transfected with a CAR T vector directed against a component of the B cell, and then returned to them.

“I do feel that we’re on the cusp of a major revolution,” Dr. D’Cruz told this news organization. Not only in lupus but also in other rheumatic conditions that have proved really difficult to treat, such as systemic sclerosis and myositis, he said.

“Basically, it’s a very powerful B-cell–depleting tool, but it’s much more profound B-cell–depleting tool than, for example, rituximab or belimumab,” explained Dr. D’Cruz. “What you’re doing is reprogramming T cells to attack the B cells.”

Although rituximab and belimumab clear all the B cells in the circulation, there are still some cells left behind in the bone marrow, “and it’s very difficult to get rid of those,” Dr. D’Cruz said. “What CAR T-cell therapy appears to do is wipe out all the CD19-positive B cells everywhere, in the blood and the tissue. So you get a really profound B-cell depletion.”

Eric Morand, MBBS, PhD, head of rheumatology at Monash Health in Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization that there was obviously “a lot of buzz” about CAR T-cell therapy.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“We’re waiting to see if the exciting data from Erlangen can be reproduced in other centers with other CAR T products to show that it is a universal effect. We haven’t seen that yet, but I think we will by next year.”

Cost and expertise are two major considerations and potential limiting factors, however, as Dr. D’Cruz and Dr. Isenberg both pointed out in separate interviews with this news organization.

Dr. D’Cruz said: “It’s very expensive, it takes a while, and it doesn’t always work is what I’m hearing. It’s usually successful, but again, a little bit depends on the technique and the people doing the process.”

Dr. Isenberg said: “CAR T-cell therapy is, I think, very exciting because it does look to be quite promising. But as it costs 350,000 euros per patient, I don’t think that it is going to be widely adopted.”

Even if it could be afforded by certain centers in the West, he added, this just would not be feasible in poorer nations. “So, we’ve got to find other effective, cheaper ways to go,” Dr. Isenberg said.

“I think there are some very interesting ideas with monoclonal antibodies which target at least two different targets — one on the B cell, one on the T cell — and that could well be the way to take this forward,” he suggested.
 

Ianalumab ‘Double Blocking’ B Cells

Another way could be to develop more potent B-cell–depleting drugs, as Nancy Agmon-Levin , MD, head of the Clinical Immunology, Angioedema and Allergy Unit, Lupus and Autoimmune Diseases Clinic, at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv, Israel, reported during one of the clinical abstract sessions at EULAR 2024.

Dr. Agmon-Levin presented data on 67 individuals with SLE who had participated in a multicenter phase 2 study of ianalumab, a fully human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 monoclonal antibody that results in a “double blocking of the B-cell lineage.”

Ianalumab targets the B-cell–activating factor receptor (BAFFR), but what makes it distinct from other BAFF-targeting drugs is that it has had a fructose molecule removed from its Fc portion, which renders it more likely to trigger antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.

“This is a B-cell depletion therapy,” Agmon-Levin said, but it also blocks BAFFR-mediated survival of B cells, so the subsequent recuperation process of BAFFR-expressing B cells is affected, leading to continued B-cell depletion.

The phase 2 study she presented consisted of an initial 28-week, double-blind period, during which time participants had been randomly allocated to receive either subcutaneous injections of ianalumab 300 mg or a matching placebo every 4 weeks. This was followed by a 24-week, open-label period where all participants were treated with ianalumab, and then an off-treatment, minimal follow-up period that lasted up to 68 weeks, with continued data collection for safety.

The primary outcome measure was a composite of meeting criteria for the SLE Responder Index 4 and a sustained reduction in corticosteroid use at 28 weeks. This was achieved in 15 of the 34 (44.1%) people treated with ianalumab vs only 3 (9.1%) of the 33 people who had been given a placebo.

Dr. Agmon-Levin reported that the effect on this outcome was sustained to the end of the open-label period, at 1 year, in 15 (45.5%) of 33 participants who had continued treatment with ianalumab and achieved in 13 (40.6%) of 32 participants who had switched from placebo to ianalumab treatment.

Moreover, longer durations of treatment were associated with a host of improved outcomes, Dr. Agmon-Levin said: “Treatment was improved along the 52 weeks, and we can see from the LLDAS [Lupus Low Disease Activity State], DORIS [Definition Of Remission In SLE], and SRI-6 and -8 that as you continue the therapy, you improve the outcomes.”

The potential benefits of ianalumab in the treatment of SLE and lupus nephritis will now be further examined in the phase 3 SIRIUS-SLE1 , SIRIUS-SLE2, and SIRIUS-LN trials, which are estimated to provide initial results in 2027 and complete in early 2029 or 2030.
 

Targeting Plasma Cells With Daratumumab

Another drug showing signs that it might be useful as a treatment for SLE is daratumumab, as Tobias Alexander, MD, of Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, reported during one of the late-breaking abstract sessions at EULAR 2024.

“Daratumumab is a human, first-in-class anti-CD38 antibody that efficiently depletes plasma cells,” Dr. Alexander said. CD38 is both a receptor and an enzyme, and while it is found on the surface of most immune cells, it’s particularly expressed by plasma cells, he added.

Daratumumab is not a total newcomer, however, as it’s already approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma under the trade name Darzalex. The rationale for using it in SLE comes from two case reports, Dr. Alexander explained. The first, published in 2020 in The New England Journal of Medicine, involved two patients with severe and life-threatening lupus who were given off-label treatment for a period of 4 weeks and experienced good clinical and serologic responses. The second, published last year in Nature Medicine, involved six patients with refractory lupus nephritis, five of whom had a clinical response at 6 months.

“On this background, we conducted an investigator-initiated trial, which was an open-label, single-center, proof-of-concept study,” Dr. Alexander said. A total of 10 female patients whose ages ranged from 24 to 43 years were included in the phase 2 trial that was dubbed DARALUP. For inclusion, all had to have a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) of four or more for clinical manifestations, have been treated with at least two prior disease-modifying drugs to no avail, and be anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody positive. Dr. Alexander reported that the median baseline SLEDAI-2K score was 12 and ranged from 8 to 20, with the number of prior therapies ranging from two to nine.

Daratumumab was given at a dose of 1800 mg via subcutaneous injection every week for 8 weeks. This is the same dose that is used to treat multiple myeloma, Dr. Alexander explained, although the dosing is not stopped. The reason for stopping after 8 weeks in the current trial was to be able to see what happened once the treatment was stopped. The follow-up was for 36 weeks.

Dr. Alexander reported that there was a “very dramatic and significant” effect on the primary endpoint of a reduction in anti-dsDNA antibody levels, decreasing from a median of 166.3 U/mL at baseline to 61.1 U/mL at week 12 (P = .002). Alongside, there was a reduction in the SLEDAI-2K score from 12 to 4 within 12 weeks, which was sustained at the 36-week follow-up assessment. Improvements in skin, joint, kidney, and level of proteinuria were also seen.

Although all patients experienced adverse events, none were serious. Infections and infestations (mostly nasopharyngitis, COVID-19, and gastroenteritis) were the most common, experienced by 80% of the participants; 70% had injection site reactions or fatigue, 60% had gastrointestinal symptoms, 50% had a fall of IgG < 5 g/L, 40% had headache, and 20% had back pain.

“This is a positive trial. I think we could demonstrate that [daratumumab] produced very strong, rapid, and durable clinical improvements,” Dr. Alexander said. “We think that targeting CD38 is relevant; plasma cells had been depleted based on the reduction of anti-dsDNA antibodies,” he added.

From the audience, however, Peter Nash, MBBS, of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, questioned whether the results could be attributed to “a steroid effect” because patients had been treated with oral dexamethasone throughout the study.

Dr. Alexander noted that steroid use had been part of the treatment schedule but acknowledged it was a possible confounder.

“I think we can be confident that [daratumumab] had a major effect on plasma cells decreasing…because we see that also the vaccine titers decreased,” Dr. Alexander said. “Time will tell, but even more important is the durability of the responses over time, which you don’t achieve under steroids.”
 

KPG-818’s Novel Mechanism of Action

Elsewhere at EULAR 2024, positive results of another phase 2 study involving a drug with an entirely different mechanism of action, KPG-818, were reported in a poster presentation. KPG-818 modulates CRBN, which results in the degradation of two transcription factors (Aiolos and Ikaros) that are involved in the development, maturation, and proliferation of innate and adaptive immune cells and have been linked to genetic risk in SLE, according to the poster’s authors. It is currently in development for the treatment of SLE, Behçet disease, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Yao Wang, MD, chief medical officer of KPG-818’s developer Kangpu Biopharmaceuticals, Hefei, China, and associates found that oral doses of 0.15 or 0.6 mg KPG-818 were “generally well-tolerated” and produced immunomodulatory changes that could be beneficial in people with SLE over a 12-week treatment period.

“Only two new agents have been approved for the treatment of SLE in the past five decades in USA and Europe,” Dr. Wang and team wrote, which highlights “a significant unmet need for more effective and safe treatment options.”

They believe that KPG-818 might well fit the bill based on the results of their study, in which 35 of 37 recruited patients completed the treatment. Compared with placebo, they observed reduced numbers of total B cells, Aiolos+ T and B cells, and increased Treg cells.

SLEDAI-2K and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity scores in the 0.15-mg group were improved relative to baseline and placebo.

“The proof-of-concept findings suggest a favorable benefit/risk ratio in SLE for KPG-818,” Dr. Wang and coauthors said, supporting its further development in SLE.
 

Need for Treatments

Dr. Isenberg told this news organization that both daratumumab and KPG-818 would be welcome additions as treatment options if further trials proved their worth.

“The great frustration about lupus is that, compared to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the choice has been so limited,” Dr. Isenberg said. Aside from rituximab (Rituxan) and belimumab (Benlysta), which are used with certain restrictions, there are no other biologic targeted treatments available in the United Kingdom. Anifrolumab (Saphnelo) has a license in the United States and some European countries but is not yet available for him to use in his practice.

Daratumumab and KPG-818 are “different types of molecules, and if they work that will be great. It would be nice to have the choice,” Dr. Isenberg said. “Whether they will be as effective as I think rituximab is, I don’t know, but these are some very encouraging results.”

Of course, these are all phase 2 trials, and the “big problem” is that such positive results do not always translate when it comes to phase 3, as Dr. D’Cruz told this news organization.

“Until a few years ago, there had been about 25 or 30 industry-led trails, and they’d all failed, except for belimumab and anifrolumab,” Dr. D’Cruz said. These drugs were found to work and be generally safe in phase 1 and 2 trials, but “when they come to phase 3, they all seem to fail, and we don’t know why.”

These are large global studies, D’Cruz added, observing that problems with patient selection, steroid use, and choice of outcome measures were possible factors for why the EXPLORER and LUNAR studies had shown no benefit for rituximab despite the drug being widely used to treat SLE.

Dr. Isenberg, who has coauthored an article on the topic of why drugs seem to fail at the final hurdle, noted: “I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the disease. It’s a complicated disease.” From having “savvy physicians doing the trials for you” to the placebo response, there are “a whole bunch or reasons why these things haven’t worked in lupus.”

Dr. Morand commented: “We’ve got many programs in phase 2 and 3, and because there’s so many, they’re all facing recruitment challenges, and as a consequence of so much activity, every program is going a little slower than hoped for.”

As for other drugs on the horizon, Dr. Morand noted: “We’re very optimistic about things like litifilimab and deucravacitinib; that’s two examples that are in phase 3. Earlier in the program of development, [there are] a huge range of targets being addressed. The future looks bright. But we might have to wait a while.”

Dr. Arnaud has consulted for AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Alpine Immune Sciences, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Janssen, Kezar Life Sciences, LFB, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Isenberg has served as an adviser to Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Servier, and ImmuPharma. Any honoraria received is passed on to a local arthritis charity connected to his hospital. Dr. D’Cruz has served as a consultant and advisory board member for GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Vifor. Dr. Morand has received research support, consultancy fees, or both from multiple pharmaceutical companies paid to his institution including AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Dragonfly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, RemeGen, Takeda, UCB, and Zenas. The ianalumab trial presented by Dr. Agmon-Levin was sponsored by Novartis Pharma; however, she reported having no conflicts of interest. The DARALUP study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Janssen. Dr. Alexander has received consulting fees, study support, honoraria, and travel grants from various pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Lilly. Dr. Nash has consulted for The Rheumatology Education Group Consultants. The KPG-818 study reported by Dr. Wang was sponsored by Kangpu Biopharmaceuticals.
 

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

VIENNA — It may have been a while since there have been any major breakthroughs in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but there are high hopes that this is a situation that may be about to change, experts agreed at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“It’s an incredibly vivid area of development,” Laurent Arnaud, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Strasbourg in Strasbourg, France, said during one of the first sessions of the meeting. He reported that there were at least 17 phase 2 and 14 phase 3 trials that were expected to start within the next few years, all with investigational agents that target different immune cells or pathways that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

In a systematic review published last year, Dr. Arnaud and coauthors found that there were 92 investigational biologic or novel targeted agents in various phases of clinical testing. This included B-cell–targeting agents such as ianalumab, plasma cell-targeting agents such as daratumumab, and drugs with novel mechanisms of action such as KPG-818, which targets the CRL4-Cereblon (CRBN) E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. Phase 2 data on all three of these investigational agents were presented during various sessions at EULAR 2024, all with positive results, suggesting that their further development in SLE is worth pursuing.

There are of course “many more candidates in the pipeline,” Dr. Arnaud said. “I’m very happy that I think we are going to see great days for lupus right in front of our eyes.”
 

Targeting B Cells

Drugs that target B cells have been at the forefront of lupus treatment for several years, as David Isenberg, MD, professor of rheumatology at University College London, pointed out during an interview for EULAR TV.

“It’s clearly important to target the cells which are likely to be causing the problem in lupus, and in the main, that tends to be B cells,” he said.

Dr. Isenberg, who is renowned for his work with the B-cell–targeting agent rituximab, added: “But we know that obviously T cells integrate with B cells, so anything which interrupts the link between the T cell and the B cell is likely to be important.”
 

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy ‘Revolution’

One new way of targeting B cells is with CAR T-cell therapy, which David D’Cruz , MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist for Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, picked as one of the “most striking” topics highlighted at EULAR 2024.

This is “truly personalized medicine,” Dr. D’Cruz said. This is an autologous therapy because a patient’s T cells are removed by leukapheresis, transfected with a CAR T vector directed against a component of the B cell, and then returned to them.

“I do feel that we’re on the cusp of a major revolution,” Dr. D’Cruz told this news organization. Not only in lupus but also in other rheumatic conditions that have proved really difficult to treat, such as systemic sclerosis and myositis, he said.

“Basically, it’s a very powerful B-cell–depleting tool, but it’s much more profound B-cell–depleting tool than, for example, rituximab or belimumab,” explained Dr. D’Cruz. “What you’re doing is reprogramming T cells to attack the B cells.”

Although rituximab and belimumab clear all the B cells in the circulation, there are still some cells left behind in the bone marrow, “and it’s very difficult to get rid of those,” Dr. D’Cruz said. “What CAR T-cell therapy appears to do is wipe out all the CD19-positive B cells everywhere, in the blood and the tissue. So you get a really profound B-cell depletion.”

Eric Morand, MBBS, PhD, head of rheumatology at Monash Health in Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization that there was obviously “a lot of buzz” about CAR T-cell therapy.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“We’re waiting to see if the exciting data from Erlangen can be reproduced in other centers with other CAR T products to show that it is a universal effect. We haven’t seen that yet, but I think we will by next year.”

Cost and expertise are two major considerations and potential limiting factors, however, as Dr. D’Cruz and Dr. Isenberg both pointed out in separate interviews with this news organization.

Dr. D’Cruz said: “It’s very expensive, it takes a while, and it doesn’t always work is what I’m hearing. It’s usually successful, but again, a little bit depends on the technique and the people doing the process.”

Dr. Isenberg said: “CAR T-cell therapy is, I think, very exciting because it does look to be quite promising. But as it costs 350,000 euros per patient, I don’t think that it is going to be widely adopted.”

Even if it could be afforded by certain centers in the West, he added, this just would not be feasible in poorer nations. “So, we’ve got to find other effective, cheaper ways to go,” Dr. Isenberg said.

“I think there are some very interesting ideas with monoclonal antibodies which target at least two different targets — one on the B cell, one on the T cell — and that could well be the way to take this forward,” he suggested.
 

Ianalumab ‘Double Blocking’ B Cells

Another way could be to develop more potent B-cell–depleting drugs, as Nancy Agmon-Levin , MD, head of the Clinical Immunology, Angioedema and Allergy Unit, Lupus and Autoimmune Diseases Clinic, at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv, Israel, reported during one of the clinical abstract sessions at EULAR 2024.

Dr. Agmon-Levin presented data on 67 individuals with SLE who had participated in a multicenter phase 2 study of ianalumab, a fully human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 monoclonal antibody that results in a “double blocking of the B-cell lineage.”

Ianalumab targets the B-cell–activating factor receptor (BAFFR), but what makes it distinct from other BAFF-targeting drugs is that it has had a fructose molecule removed from its Fc portion, which renders it more likely to trigger antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.

“This is a B-cell depletion therapy,” Agmon-Levin said, but it also blocks BAFFR-mediated survival of B cells, so the subsequent recuperation process of BAFFR-expressing B cells is affected, leading to continued B-cell depletion.

The phase 2 study she presented consisted of an initial 28-week, double-blind period, during which time participants had been randomly allocated to receive either subcutaneous injections of ianalumab 300 mg or a matching placebo every 4 weeks. This was followed by a 24-week, open-label period where all participants were treated with ianalumab, and then an off-treatment, minimal follow-up period that lasted up to 68 weeks, with continued data collection for safety.

The primary outcome measure was a composite of meeting criteria for the SLE Responder Index 4 and a sustained reduction in corticosteroid use at 28 weeks. This was achieved in 15 of the 34 (44.1%) people treated with ianalumab vs only 3 (9.1%) of the 33 people who had been given a placebo.

Dr. Agmon-Levin reported that the effect on this outcome was sustained to the end of the open-label period, at 1 year, in 15 (45.5%) of 33 participants who had continued treatment with ianalumab and achieved in 13 (40.6%) of 32 participants who had switched from placebo to ianalumab treatment.

Moreover, longer durations of treatment were associated with a host of improved outcomes, Dr. Agmon-Levin said: “Treatment was improved along the 52 weeks, and we can see from the LLDAS [Lupus Low Disease Activity State], DORIS [Definition Of Remission In SLE], and SRI-6 and -8 that as you continue the therapy, you improve the outcomes.”

The potential benefits of ianalumab in the treatment of SLE and lupus nephritis will now be further examined in the phase 3 SIRIUS-SLE1 , SIRIUS-SLE2, and SIRIUS-LN trials, which are estimated to provide initial results in 2027 and complete in early 2029 or 2030.
 

Targeting Plasma Cells With Daratumumab

Another drug showing signs that it might be useful as a treatment for SLE is daratumumab, as Tobias Alexander, MD, of Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, reported during one of the late-breaking abstract sessions at EULAR 2024.

“Daratumumab is a human, first-in-class anti-CD38 antibody that efficiently depletes plasma cells,” Dr. Alexander said. CD38 is both a receptor and an enzyme, and while it is found on the surface of most immune cells, it’s particularly expressed by plasma cells, he added.

Daratumumab is not a total newcomer, however, as it’s already approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma under the trade name Darzalex. The rationale for using it in SLE comes from two case reports, Dr. Alexander explained. The first, published in 2020 in The New England Journal of Medicine, involved two patients with severe and life-threatening lupus who were given off-label treatment for a period of 4 weeks and experienced good clinical and serologic responses. The second, published last year in Nature Medicine, involved six patients with refractory lupus nephritis, five of whom had a clinical response at 6 months.

“On this background, we conducted an investigator-initiated trial, which was an open-label, single-center, proof-of-concept study,” Dr. Alexander said. A total of 10 female patients whose ages ranged from 24 to 43 years were included in the phase 2 trial that was dubbed DARALUP. For inclusion, all had to have a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) of four or more for clinical manifestations, have been treated with at least two prior disease-modifying drugs to no avail, and be anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody positive. Dr. Alexander reported that the median baseline SLEDAI-2K score was 12 and ranged from 8 to 20, with the number of prior therapies ranging from two to nine.

Daratumumab was given at a dose of 1800 mg via subcutaneous injection every week for 8 weeks. This is the same dose that is used to treat multiple myeloma, Dr. Alexander explained, although the dosing is not stopped. The reason for stopping after 8 weeks in the current trial was to be able to see what happened once the treatment was stopped. The follow-up was for 36 weeks.

Dr. Alexander reported that there was a “very dramatic and significant” effect on the primary endpoint of a reduction in anti-dsDNA antibody levels, decreasing from a median of 166.3 U/mL at baseline to 61.1 U/mL at week 12 (P = .002). Alongside, there was a reduction in the SLEDAI-2K score from 12 to 4 within 12 weeks, which was sustained at the 36-week follow-up assessment. Improvements in skin, joint, kidney, and level of proteinuria were also seen.

Although all patients experienced adverse events, none were serious. Infections and infestations (mostly nasopharyngitis, COVID-19, and gastroenteritis) were the most common, experienced by 80% of the participants; 70% had injection site reactions or fatigue, 60% had gastrointestinal symptoms, 50% had a fall of IgG < 5 g/L, 40% had headache, and 20% had back pain.

“This is a positive trial. I think we could demonstrate that [daratumumab] produced very strong, rapid, and durable clinical improvements,” Dr. Alexander said. “We think that targeting CD38 is relevant; plasma cells had been depleted based on the reduction of anti-dsDNA antibodies,” he added.

From the audience, however, Peter Nash, MBBS, of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, questioned whether the results could be attributed to “a steroid effect” because patients had been treated with oral dexamethasone throughout the study.

Dr. Alexander noted that steroid use had been part of the treatment schedule but acknowledged it was a possible confounder.

“I think we can be confident that [daratumumab] had a major effect on plasma cells decreasing…because we see that also the vaccine titers decreased,” Dr. Alexander said. “Time will tell, but even more important is the durability of the responses over time, which you don’t achieve under steroids.”
 

KPG-818’s Novel Mechanism of Action

Elsewhere at EULAR 2024, positive results of another phase 2 study involving a drug with an entirely different mechanism of action, KPG-818, were reported in a poster presentation. KPG-818 modulates CRBN, which results in the degradation of two transcription factors (Aiolos and Ikaros) that are involved in the development, maturation, and proliferation of innate and adaptive immune cells and have been linked to genetic risk in SLE, according to the poster’s authors. It is currently in development for the treatment of SLE, Behçet disease, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Yao Wang, MD, chief medical officer of KPG-818’s developer Kangpu Biopharmaceuticals, Hefei, China, and associates found that oral doses of 0.15 or 0.6 mg KPG-818 were “generally well-tolerated” and produced immunomodulatory changes that could be beneficial in people with SLE over a 12-week treatment period.

“Only two new agents have been approved for the treatment of SLE in the past five decades in USA and Europe,” Dr. Wang and team wrote, which highlights “a significant unmet need for more effective and safe treatment options.”

They believe that KPG-818 might well fit the bill based on the results of their study, in which 35 of 37 recruited patients completed the treatment. Compared with placebo, they observed reduced numbers of total B cells, Aiolos+ T and B cells, and increased Treg cells.

SLEDAI-2K and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity scores in the 0.15-mg group were improved relative to baseline and placebo.

“The proof-of-concept findings suggest a favorable benefit/risk ratio in SLE for KPG-818,” Dr. Wang and coauthors said, supporting its further development in SLE.
 

Need for Treatments

Dr. Isenberg told this news organization that both daratumumab and KPG-818 would be welcome additions as treatment options if further trials proved their worth.

“The great frustration about lupus is that, compared to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the choice has been so limited,” Dr. Isenberg said. Aside from rituximab (Rituxan) and belimumab (Benlysta), which are used with certain restrictions, there are no other biologic targeted treatments available in the United Kingdom. Anifrolumab (Saphnelo) has a license in the United States and some European countries but is not yet available for him to use in his practice.

Daratumumab and KPG-818 are “different types of molecules, and if they work that will be great. It would be nice to have the choice,” Dr. Isenberg said. “Whether they will be as effective as I think rituximab is, I don’t know, but these are some very encouraging results.”

Of course, these are all phase 2 trials, and the “big problem” is that such positive results do not always translate when it comes to phase 3, as Dr. D’Cruz told this news organization.

“Until a few years ago, there had been about 25 or 30 industry-led trails, and they’d all failed, except for belimumab and anifrolumab,” Dr. D’Cruz said. These drugs were found to work and be generally safe in phase 1 and 2 trials, but “when they come to phase 3, they all seem to fail, and we don’t know why.”

These are large global studies, D’Cruz added, observing that problems with patient selection, steroid use, and choice of outcome measures were possible factors for why the EXPLORER and LUNAR studies had shown no benefit for rituximab despite the drug being widely used to treat SLE.

Dr. Isenberg, who has coauthored an article on the topic of why drugs seem to fail at the final hurdle, noted: “I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the disease. It’s a complicated disease.” From having “savvy physicians doing the trials for you” to the placebo response, there are “a whole bunch or reasons why these things haven’t worked in lupus.”

Dr. Morand commented: “We’ve got many programs in phase 2 and 3, and because there’s so many, they’re all facing recruitment challenges, and as a consequence of so much activity, every program is going a little slower than hoped for.”

As for other drugs on the horizon, Dr. Morand noted: “We’re very optimistic about things like litifilimab and deucravacitinib; that’s two examples that are in phase 3. Earlier in the program of development, [there are] a huge range of targets being addressed. The future looks bright. But we might have to wait a while.”

Dr. Arnaud has consulted for AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Alpine Immune Sciences, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Janssen, Kezar Life Sciences, LFB, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Isenberg has served as an adviser to Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Servier, and ImmuPharma. Any honoraria received is passed on to a local arthritis charity connected to his hospital. Dr. D’Cruz has served as a consultant and advisory board member for GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Vifor. Dr. Morand has received research support, consultancy fees, or both from multiple pharmaceutical companies paid to his institution including AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Dragonfly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, RemeGen, Takeda, UCB, and Zenas. The ianalumab trial presented by Dr. Agmon-Levin was sponsored by Novartis Pharma; however, she reported having no conflicts of interest. The DARALUP study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Janssen. Dr. Alexander has received consulting fees, study support, honoraria, and travel grants from various pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Lilly. Dr. Nash has consulted for The Rheumatology Education Group Consultants. The KPG-818 study reported by Dr. Wang was sponsored by Kangpu Biopharmaceuticals.
 

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

VIENNA — It may have been a while since there have been any major breakthroughs in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but there are high hopes that this is a situation that may be about to change, experts agreed at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“It’s an incredibly vivid area of development,” Laurent Arnaud, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Strasbourg in Strasbourg, France, said during one of the first sessions of the meeting. He reported that there were at least 17 phase 2 and 14 phase 3 trials that were expected to start within the next few years, all with investigational agents that target different immune cells or pathways that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of SLE.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

In a systematic review published last year, Dr. Arnaud and coauthors found that there were 92 investigational biologic or novel targeted agents in various phases of clinical testing. This included B-cell–targeting agents such as ianalumab, plasma cell-targeting agents such as daratumumab, and drugs with novel mechanisms of action such as KPG-818, which targets the CRL4-Cereblon (CRBN) E3 ubiquitin ligase complex. Phase 2 data on all three of these investigational agents were presented during various sessions at EULAR 2024, all with positive results, suggesting that their further development in SLE is worth pursuing.

There are of course “many more candidates in the pipeline,” Dr. Arnaud said. “I’m very happy that I think we are going to see great days for lupus right in front of our eyes.”
 

Targeting B Cells

Drugs that target B cells have been at the forefront of lupus treatment for several years, as David Isenberg, MD, professor of rheumatology at University College London, pointed out during an interview for EULAR TV.

“It’s clearly important to target the cells which are likely to be causing the problem in lupus, and in the main, that tends to be B cells,” he said.

Dr. Isenberg, who is renowned for his work with the B-cell–targeting agent rituximab, added: “But we know that obviously T cells integrate with B cells, so anything which interrupts the link between the T cell and the B cell is likely to be important.”
 

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy ‘Revolution’

One new way of targeting B cells is with CAR T-cell therapy, which David D’Cruz , MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist for Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in London, picked as one of the “most striking” topics highlighted at EULAR 2024.

This is “truly personalized medicine,” Dr. D’Cruz said. This is an autologous therapy because a patient’s T cells are removed by leukapheresis, transfected with a CAR T vector directed against a component of the B cell, and then returned to them.

“I do feel that we’re on the cusp of a major revolution,” Dr. D’Cruz told this news organization. Not only in lupus but also in other rheumatic conditions that have proved really difficult to treat, such as systemic sclerosis and myositis, he said.

“Basically, it’s a very powerful B-cell–depleting tool, but it’s much more profound B-cell–depleting tool than, for example, rituximab or belimumab,” explained Dr. D’Cruz. “What you’re doing is reprogramming T cells to attack the B cells.”

Although rituximab and belimumab clear all the B cells in the circulation, there are still some cells left behind in the bone marrow, “and it’s very difficult to get rid of those,” Dr. D’Cruz said. “What CAR T-cell therapy appears to do is wipe out all the CD19-positive B cells everywhere, in the blood and the tissue. So you get a really profound B-cell depletion.”

Eric Morand, MBBS, PhD, head of rheumatology at Monash Health in Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization that there was obviously “a lot of buzz” about CAR T-cell therapy.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“We’re waiting to see if the exciting data from Erlangen can be reproduced in other centers with other CAR T products to show that it is a universal effect. We haven’t seen that yet, but I think we will by next year.”

Cost and expertise are two major considerations and potential limiting factors, however, as Dr. D’Cruz and Dr. Isenberg both pointed out in separate interviews with this news organization.

Dr. D’Cruz said: “It’s very expensive, it takes a while, and it doesn’t always work is what I’m hearing. It’s usually successful, but again, a little bit depends on the technique and the people doing the process.”

Dr. Isenberg said: “CAR T-cell therapy is, I think, very exciting because it does look to be quite promising. But as it costs 350,000 euros per patient, I don’t think that it is going to be widely adopted.”

Even if it could be afforded by certain centers in the West, he added, this just would not be feasible in poorer nations. “So, we’ve got to find other effective, cheaper ways to go,” Dr. Isenberg said.

“I think there are some very interesting ideas with monoclonal antibodies which target at least two different targets — one on the B cell, one on the T cell — and that could well be the way to take this forward,” he suggested.
 

Ianalumab ‘Double Blocking’ B Cells

Another way could be to develop more potent B-cell–depleting drugs, as Nancy Agmon-Levin , MD, head of the Clinical Immunology, Angioedema and Allergy Unit, Lupus and Autoimmune Diseases Clinic, at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University in Tel Aviv, Israel, reported during one of the clinical abstract sessions at EULAR 2024.

Dr. Agmon-Levin presented data on 67 individuals with SLE who had participated in a multicenter phase 2 study of ianalumab, a fully human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 monoclonal antibody that results in a “double blocking of the B-cell lineage.”

Ianalumab targets the B-cell–activating factor receptor (BAFFR), but what makes it distinct from other BAFF-targeting drugs is that it has had a fructose molecule removed from its Fc portion, which renders it more likely to trigger antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity.

“This is a B-cell depletion therapy,” Agmon-Levin said, but it also blocks BAFFR-mediated survival of B cells, so the subsequent recuperation process of BAFFR-expressing B cells is affected, leading to continued B-cell depletion.

The phase 2 study she presented consisted of an initial 28-week, double-blind period, during which time participants had been randomly allocated to receive either subcutaneous injections of ianalumab 300 mg or a matching placebo every 4 weeks. This was followed by a 24-week, open-label period where all participants were treated with ianalumab, and then an off-treatment, minimal follow-up period that lasted up to 68 weeks, with continued data collection for safety.

The primary outcome measure was a composite of meeting criteria for the SLE Responder Index 4 and a sustained reduction in corticosteroid use at 28 weeks. This was achieved in 15 of the 34 (44.1%) people treated with ianalumab vs only 3 (9.1%) of the 33 people who had been given a placebo.

Dr. Agmon-Levin reported that the effect on this outcome was sustained to the end of the open-label period, at 1 year, in 15 (45.5%) of 33 participants who had continued treatment with ianalumab and achieved in 13 (40.6%) of 32 participants who had switched from placebo to ianalumab treatment.

Moreover, longer durations of treatment were associated with a host of improved outcomes, Dr. Agmon-Levin said: “Treatment was improved along the 52 weeks, and we can see from the LLDAS [Lupus Low Disease Activity State], DORIS [Definition Of Remission In SLE], and SRI-6 and -8 that as you continue the therapy, you improve the outcomes.”

The potential benefits of ianalumab in the treatment of SLE and lupus nephritis will now be further examined in the phase 3 SIRIUS-SLE1 , SIRIUS-SLE2, and SIRIUS-LN trials, which are estimated to provide initial results in 2027 and complete in early 2029 or 2030.
 

Targeting Plasma Cells With Daratumumab

Another drug showing signs that it might be useful as a treatment for SLE is daratumumab, as Tobias Alexander, MD, of Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, reported during one of the late-breaking abstract sessions at EULAR 2024.

“Daratumumab is a human, first-in-class anti-CD38 antibody that efficiently depletes plasma cells,” Dr. Alexander said. CD38 is both a receptor and an enzyme, and while it is found on the surface of most immune cells, it’s particularly expressed by plasma cells, he added.

Daratumumab is not a total newcomer, however, as it’s already approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma under the trade name Darzalex. The rationale for using it in SLE comes from two case reports, Dr. Alexander explained. The first, published in 2020 in The New England Journal of Medicine, involved two patients with severe and life-threatening lupus who were given off-label treatment for a period of 4 weeks and experienced good clinical and serologic responses. The second, published last year in Nature Medicine, involved six patients with refractory lupus nephritis, five of whom had a clinical response at 6 months.

“On this background, we conducted an investigator-initiated trial, which was an open-label, single-center, proof-of-concept study,” Dr. Alexander said. A total of 10 female patients whose ages ranged from 24 to 43 years were included in the phase 2 trial that was dubbed DARALUP. For inclusion, all had to have a Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) of four or more for clinical manifestations, have been treated with at least two prior disease-modifying drugs to no avail, and be anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody positive. Dr. Alexander reported that the median baseline SLEDAI-2K score was 12 and ranged from 8 to 20, with the number of prior therapies ranging from two to nine.

Daratumumab was given at a dose of 1800 mg via subcutaneous injection every week for 8 weeks. This is the same dose that is used to treat multiple myeloma, Dr. Alexander explained, although the dosing is not stopped. The reason for stopping after 8 weeks in the current trial was to be able to see what happened once the treatment was stopped. The follow-up was for 36 weeks.

Dr. Alexander reported that there was a “very dramatic and significant” effect on the primary endpoint of a reduction in anti-dsDNA antibody levels, decreasing from a median of 166.3 U/mL at baseline to 61.1 U/mL at week 12 (P = .002). Alongside, there was a reduction in the SLEDAI-2K score from 12 to 4 within 12 weeks, which was sustained at the 36-week follow-up assessment. Improvements in skin, joint, kidney, and level of proteinuria were also seen.

Although all patients experienced adverse events, none were serious. Infections and infestations (mostly nasopharyngitis, COVID-19, and gastroenteritis) were the most common, experienced by 80% of the participants; 70% had injection site reactions or fatigue, 60% had gastrointestinal symptoms, 50% had a fall of IgG < 5 g/L, 40% had headache, and 20% had back pain.

“This is a positive trial. I think we could demonstrate that [daratumumab] produced very strong, rapid, and durable clinical improvements,” Dr. Alexander said. “We think that targeting CD38 is relevant; plasma cells had been depleted based on the reduction of anti-dsDNA antibodies,” he added.

From the audience, however, Peter Nash, MBBS, of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, questioned whether the results could be attributed to “a steroid effect” because patients had been treated with oral dexamethasone throughout the study.

Dr. Alexander noted that steroid use had been part of the treatment schedule but acknowledged it was a possible confounder.

“I think we can be confident that [daratumumab] had a major effect on plasma cells decreasing…because we see that also the vaccine titers decreased,” Dr. Alexander said. “Time will tell, but even more important is the durability of the responses over time, which you don’t achieve under steroids.”
 

KPG-818’s Novel Mechanism of Action

Elsewhere at EULAR 2024, positive results of another phase 2 study involving a drug with an entirely different mechanism of action, KPG-818, were reported in a poster presentation. KPG-818 modulates CRBN, which results in the degradation of two transcription factors (Aiolos and Ikaros) that are involved in the development, maturation, and proliferation of innate and adaptive immune cells and have been linked to genetic risk in SLE, according to the poster’s authors. It is currently in development for the treatment of SLE, Behçet disease, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Yao Wang, MD, chief medical officer of KPG-818’s developer Kangpu Biopharmaceuticals, Hefei, China, and associates found that oral doses of 0.15 or 0.6 mg KPG-818 were “generally well-tolerated” and produced immunomodulatory changes that could be beneficial in people with SLE over a 12-week treatment period.

“Only two new agents have been approved for the treatment of SLE in the past five decades in USA and Europe,” Dr. Wang and team wrote, which highlights “a significant unmet need for more effective and safe treatment options.”

They believe that KPG-818 might well fit the bill based on the results of their study, in which 35 of 37 recruited patients completed the treatment. Compared with placebo, they observed reduced numbers of total B cells, Aiolos+ T and B cells, and increased Treg cells.

SLEDAI-2K and Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity scores in the 0.15-mg group were improved relative to baseline and placebo.

“The proof-of-concept findings suggest a favorable benefit/risk ratio in SLE for KPG-818,” Dr. Wang and coauthors said, supporting its further development in SLE.
 

Need for Treatments

Dr. Isenberg told this news organization that both daratumumab and KPG-818 would be welcome additions as treatment options if further trials proved their worth.

“The great frustration about lupus is that, compared to patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the choice has been so limited,” Dr. Isenberg said. Aside from rituximab (Rituxan) and belimumab (Benlysta), which are used with certain restrictions, there are no other biologic targeted treatments available in the United Kingdom. Anifrolumab (Saphnelo) has a license in the United States and some European countries but is not yet available for him to use in his practice.

Daratumumab and KPG-818 are “different types of molecules, and if they work that will be great. It would be nice to have the choice,” Dr. Isenberg said. “Whether they will be as effective as I think rituximab is, I don’t know, but these are some very encouraging results.”

Of course, these are all phase 2 trials, and the “big problem” is that such positive results do not always translate when it comes to phase 3, as Dr. D’Cruz told this news organization.

“Until a few years ago, there had been about 25 or 30 industry-led trails, and they’d all failed, except for belimumab and anifrolumab,” Dr. D’Cruz said. These drugs were found to work and be generally safe in phase 1 and 2 trials, but “when they come to phase 3, they all seem to fail, and we don’t know why.”

These are large global studies, D’Cruz added, observing that problems with patient selection, steroid use, and choice of outcome measures were possible factors for why the EXPLORER and LUNAR studies had shown no benefit for rituximab despite the drug being widely used to treat SLE.

Dr. Isenberg, who has coauthored an article on the topic of why drugs seem to fail at the final hurdle, noted: “I think it has a lot to do with the nature of the disease. It’s a complicated disease.” From having “savvy physicians doing the trials for you” to the placebo response, there are “a whole bunch or reasons why these things haven’t worked in lupus.”

Dr. Morand commented: “We’ve got many programs in phase 2 and 3, and because there’s so many, they’re all facing recruitment challenges, and as a consequence of so much activity, every program is going a little slower than hoped for.”

As for other drugs on the horizon, Dr. Morand noted: “We’re very optimistic about things like litifilimab and deucravacitinib; that’s two examples that are in phase 3. Earlier in the program of development, [there are] a huge range of targets being addressed. The future looks bright. But we might have to wait a while.”

Dr. Arnaud has consulted for AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Alpine Immune Sciences, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharmaceutical, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Janssen, Kezar Life Sciences, LFB, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. Dr. Isenberg has served as an adviser to Merck Serono, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Servier, and ImmuPharma. Any honoraria received is passed on to a local arthritis charity connected to his hospital. Dr. D’Cruz has served as a consultant and advisory board member for GlaxoSmithKline and CSL Vifor. Dr. Morand has received research support, consultancy fees, or both from multiple pharmaceutical companies paid to his institution including AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Dragonfly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, RemeGen, Takeda, UCB, and Zenas. The ianalumab trial presented by Dr. Agmon-Levin was sponsored by Novartis Pharma; however, she reported having no conflicts of interest. The DARALUP study was an investigator-initiated trial supported by Janssen. Dr. Alexander has received consulting fees, study support, honoraria, and travel grants from various pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Lilly. Dr. Nash has consulted for The Rheumatology Education Group Consultants. The KPG-818 study reported by Dr. Wang was sponsored by Kangpu Biopharmaceuticals.
 

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

VIENNA — While there is no doubt that some people with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have axial symptoms, data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology do not appear to add much to what is already known about axial PsA or to further the cause of differentiating it from axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

In both the AXIS study and Reuma.pt, around one in three patients with PsA were found to have axial involvement. Notably, the percentage of people with axial PsA was found to vary according to how imaging information was interpreted in the AXIS study. Both studies were discussed during the Axial Involvement in PsA and SpA session at EULAR 2024.
 

The One-Million-Dollar Question

“So, the one-million-dollar question: What is it, really?” Philippe Carron, MD, PhD, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium, said in the presentation that started the session. Despite PsA being described more than 60 years ago, “we still have no internationally accepted definition or a consensus on how we should define these patients and how we should screen them,” he said.

“There are some believers that it is just a form of axial SpA with concomitant psoriasis, but also some people that think that the axial PsA is a typical disease, with typical characteristics which are different from axial disease,” Dr. Carron said.

The lack of consensus makes it difficult to estimate just how many people have axial PsA. Reported prevalences range from 5% to 70%, “all caused by which criteria that you’re using to define axial involvement,” Dr. Carron added.

There are, however, two things that can be agreed upon, according to Dr. Carron. First, the prevalence of axial involvement in people with early PsA is “much, much lower” than that of more established disease. Second, exclusive axial involvement is seen in “just a minority of PsA patients.” Most people with axial disease also have peripheral disease, he added.

Imaging findings in axial PsA “are quite similar to those seen in axial SpA,” although Dr. Carron also said that there were some distinct differences. Radiographic sacroiliitis occurs in around 25%-50% of people with axial PsA, and atypical syndesmophytes are more often found in people with axial PsA than in those with axSpA.
 

Shared Characteristics

But are axial PsA and axSpA separate diseases or part of the same disease continuum? That’s a question that is still very much open for debate, said Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher at Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, and rheumatology consultant at Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, the Netherlands.

While many studies have looked to answer this question, there is a big methodological problem — the studies largely cannot be compared as they have used different definitions of axSpA.

Take a patient with inflammatory back pain, psoriasis, and oligoarthritis, Dr. Ramiro said. If the patient goes to one rheumatologist, they may get a diagnosis of axSpA, but if they go to a different rheumatologist, they may get a diagnosis of axial PsA.

“This is influenced by training, expertise, by beliefs, and by belonging to ASAS [Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society] or to GRAPPA [Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis],” Dr. Ramiro suggested. It’s “a diagnostic bias” that is very difficult to overcome and makes direct comparisons between patient populations recruited into clinical studies “extremely challenging.”

To confuse matters more, axial PsA and axSpA share common characteristics: Inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) or a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and structural lesions in the sacroiliac joints and spine.
 

AXIS Study ‘Gives Answers’

More research into factors associated with axial PsA need to be performed to try to help define the condition and enable classification and ultimately treatment guidelines. This is where the AXIS study comes in.

The AXIS study is a joint project of ASAS and GRAPPA that was started in January 2019 with the aim of defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients who could be studied.

“The objectives of the AXIS study are to determine the frequency of axial involvement in patients with PsA; to identify the frequency of active inflammatory and structural changes on imaging; and to identify factors associated with the presence of axial involvement in PsA,” Murat Torgutalp, MD, of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, said at EULAR 2024.

The study population consisted of 409 consecutively recruited patients diagnosed with PsA according to CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria; all have had PsA for up to 10 years and were untreated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs at the time of inclusion.

Dr. Torgutalp, who is the study’s primary research coordinator, reported that a diagnosis of PsA was made in 37% of the population when local investigators considered available clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. However, patients’ imaging data were also centrally assessed, and when the local investigators were party to the expert imaging interpretations, the percentage of people diagnosed with PsA dropped to 27%.

“When we looked at the clinical characteristics, the presence of the back pain, particularly inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, elevated CRP, and presence of active, inflammatory and structural changes in the sacroiliac joints and spine were associated with the final conclusion on the presence of axial involvement,” Dr. Torgutalp said.

Despite the title of his presentation being “The Axis Study Gives Answers,” Dr. Torgutalp presented lots of data without giving much insight into how they might be used. He concluded that “overall, there was a trend toward overestimation of the presence of imaging changes indicative of axial involvement across all imaging modalities” by the local investigators.

Dennis McGonagle, MB, MCH, BAO, PhD, of the University of Leeds, Leeds, England,said in an interview that the AXIS study “is a noble, international effort across multiple countries to try and better understand axial PsA.”

Dr. McGonagle, who was not involved in the study, added: “A lot of data are being generated, and a lot of analysis needs to be done to drill down to get a clear message that could influence practice.”
 

Axial PsA in the Portuguese Population

Separately, Catarina Abreu, a rheumatology intern at Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, presented some real-world data on axial PsA from Reuma.pt.

Of 2304 patients, 854 (37.1%) reportedly had axial PsA, which had been defined as physician-reported spondylitis or the presence of imaging findings suggestive of axial involvement. This included radiographic- or MRI-detected sacroiliitis or syndesmophytes seen on axial x-rays.

The majority (78.2%) of those with an axial PsA diagnosis had concomitant peripheral involvement, with 8.1% having exclusive axial disease.

About 70% of the axial PsA diagnoses had been made using clinical or laboratory findings alone, and 30% of diagnoses was based on imaging results. Of the latter, Ms. Abreu noted that patients who had imaging data available were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive and less likely to have dactylitis, with respective odds ratios (ORs) of 3.10 and 2.42.

Individuals with axial PsA were more likely to have enthesitis (OR, 1.92), although no data were available on whether this was axial or peripheral enthesitis. Tobacco exposure was also linked to an increased chance of having axial PsA (OR, 1.66).

Ms. Abreu noted that the “scarce number of available imaging exams” and other missing data in Reuma.pt may have led to an underdiagnosis of axial PsA.

“The difference that we found between axial and peripheral [PsA] are similar to the differences found in other studies that compared axial psoriatic arthritis with axial spondyloarthritis,” Ms. Abreu said.

“So, we leave with the question that was already left before here: If these are different diseases or just different phenotypes of the same disease, and what implications will this have in the future?” Ms. Abreu concluded.

Dr. Carron received educational grants, speaker fees, or honoraria for other consultancy work from AbbVie, UCB, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, and Galapagos/Alfasigma. Dr. Ramiro is an ASAS executive committee member and received research grants or consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. AXIS is supported by unrestricted research grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Torgutalp is the primary research coordinator for the study; he reported no financial conflicts of interest. The Reuma.pt registry was developed with the financial support of the pharmaceutical industry and is currently supported by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. Ms. Abreu reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — While there is no doubt that some people with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have axial symptoms, data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology do not appear to add much to what is already known about axial PsA or to further the cause of differentiating it from axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

In both the AXIS study and Reuma.pt, around one in three patients with PsA were found to have axial involvement. Notably, the percentage of people with axial PsA was found to vary according to how imaging information was interpreted in the AXIS study. Both studies were discussed during the Axial Involvement in PsA and SpA session at EULAR 2024.
 

The One-Million-Dollar Question

“So, the one-million-dollar question: What is it, really?” Philippe Carron, MD, PhD, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium, said in the presentation that started the session. Despite PsA being described more than 60 years ago, “we still have no internationally accepted definition or a consensus on how we should define these patients and how we should screen them,” he said.

“There are some believers that it is just a form of axial SpA with concomitant psoriasis, but also some people that think that the axial PsA is a typical disease, with typical characteristics which are different from axial disease,” Dr. Carron said.

The lack of consensus makes it difficult to estimate just how many people have axial PsA. Reported prevalences range from 5% to 70%, “all caused by which criteria that you’re using to define axial involvement,” Dr. Carron added.

There are, however, two things that can be agreed upon, according to Dr. Carron. First, the prevalence of axial involvement in people with early PsA is “much, much lower” than that of more established disease. Second, exclusive axial involvement is seen in “just a minority of PsA patients.” Most people with axial disease also have peripheral disease, he added.

Imaging findings in axial PsA “are quite similar to those seen in axial SpA,” although Dr. Carron also said that there were some distinct differences. Radiographic sacroiliitis occurs in around 25%-50% of people with axial PsA, and atypical syndesmophytes are more often found in people with axial PsA than in those with axSpA.
 

Shared Characteristics

But are axial PsA and axSpA separate diseases or part of the same disease continuum? That’s a question that is still very much open for debate, said Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher at Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, and rheumatology consultant at Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, the Netherlands.

While many studies have looked to answer this question, there is a big methodological problem — the studies largely cannot be compared as they have used different definitions of axSpA.

Take a patient with inflammatory back pain, psoriasis, and oligoarthritis, Dr. Ramiro said. If the patient goes to one rheumatologist, they may get a diagnosis of axSpA, but if they go to a different rheumatologist, they may get a diagnosis of axial PsA.

“This is influenced by training, expertise, by beliefs, and by belonging to ASAS [Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society] or to GRAPPA [Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis],” Dr. Ramiro suggested. It’s “a diagnostic bias” that is very difficult to overcome and makes direct comparisons between patient populations recruited into clinical studies “extremely challenging.”

To confuse matters more, axial PsA and axSpA share common characteristics: Inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) or a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and structural lesions in the sacroiliac joints and spine.
 

AXIS Study ‘Gives Answers’

More research into factors associated with axial PsA need to be performed to try to help define the condition and enable classification and ultimately treatment guidelines. This is where the AXIS study comes in.

The AXIS study is a joint project of ASAS and GRAPPA that was started in January 2019 with the aim of defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients who could be studied.

“The objectives of the AXIS study are to determine the frequency of axial involvement in patients with PsA; to identify the frequency of active inflammatory and structural changes on imaging; and to identify factors associated with the presence of axial involvement in PsA,” Murat Torgutalp, MD, of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, said at EULAR 2024.

The study population consisted of 409 consecutively recruited patients diagnosed with PsA according to CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria; all have had PsA for up to 10 years and were untreated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs at the time of inclusion.

Dr. Torgutalp, who is the study’s primary research coordinator, reported that a diagnosis of PsA was made in 37% of the population when local investigators considered available clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. However, patients’ imaging data were also centrally assessed, and when the local investigators were party to the expert imaging interpretations, the percentage of people diagnosed with PsA dropped to 27%.

“When we looked at the clinical characteristics, the presence of the back pain, particularly inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, elevated CRP, and presence of active, inflammatory and structural changes in the sacroiliac joints and spine were associated with the final conclusion on the presence of axial involvement,” Dr. Torgutalp said.

Despite the title of his presentation being “The Axis Study Gives Answers,” Dr. Torgutalp presented lots of data without giving much insight into how they might be used. He concluded that “overall, there was a trend toward overestimation of the presence of imaging changes indicative of axial involvement across all imaging modalities” by the local investigators.

Dennis McGonagle, MB, MCH, BAO, PhD, of the University of Leeds, Leeds, England,said in an interview that the AXIS study “is a noble, international effort across multiple countries to try and better understand axial PsA.”

Dr. McGonagle, who was not involved in the study, added: “A lot of data are being generated, and a lot of analysis needs to be done to drill down to get a clear message that could influence practice.”
 

Axial PsA in the Portuguese Population

Separately, Catarina Abreu, a rheumatology intern at Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, presented some real-world data on axial PsA from Reuma.pt.

Of 2304 patients, 854 (37.1%) reportedly had axial PsA, which had been defined as physician-reported spondylitis or the presence of imaging findings suggestive of axial involvement. This included radiographic- or MRI-detected sacroiliitis or syndesmophytes seen on axial x-rays.

The majority (78.2%) of those with an axial PsA diagnosis had concomitant peripheral involvement, with 8.1% having exclusive axial disease.

About 70% of the axial PsA diagnoses had been made using clinical or laboratory findings alone, and 30% of diagnoses was based on imaging results. Of the latter, Ms. Abreu noted that patients who had imaging data available were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive and less likely to have dactylitis, with respective odds ratios (ORs) of 3.10 and 2.42.

Individuals with axial PsA were more likely to have enthesitis (OR, 1.92), although no data were available on whether this was axial or peripheral enthesitis. Tobacco exposure was also linked to an increased chance of having axial PsA (OR, 1.66).

Ms. Abreu noted that the “scarce number of available imaging exams” and other missing data in Reuma.pt may have led to an underdiagnosis of axial PsA.

“The difference that we found between axial and peripheral [PsA] are similar to the differences found in other studies that compared axial psoriatic arthritis with axial spondyloarthritis,” Ms. Abreu said.

“So, we leave with the question that was already left before here: If these are different diseases or just different phenotypes of the same disease, and what implications will this have in the future?” Ms. Abreu concluded.

Dr. Carron received educational grants, speaker fees, or honoraria for other consultancy work from AbbVie, UCB, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, and Galapagos/Alfasigma. Dr. Ramiro is an ASAS executive committee member and received research grants or consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. AXIS is supported by unrestricted research grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Torgutalp is the primary research coordinator for the study; he reported no financial conflicts of interest. The Reuma.pt registry was developed with the financial support of the pharmaceutical industry and is currently supported by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. Ms. Abreu reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — While there is no doubt that some people with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have axial symptoms, data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology do not appear to add much to what is already known about axial PsA or to further the cause of differentiating it from axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

In both the AXIS study and Reuma.pt, around one in three patients with PsA were found to have axial involvement. Notably, the percentage of people with axial PsA was found to vary according to how imaging information was interpreted in the AXIS study. Both studies were discussed during the Axial Involvement in PsA and SpA session at EULAR 2024.
 

The One-Million-Dollar Question

“So, the one-million-dollar question: What is it, really?” Philippe Carron, MD, PhD, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium, said in the presentation that started the session. Despite PsA being described more than 60 years ago, “we still have no internationally accepted definition or a consensus on how we should define these patients and how we should screen them,” he said.

“There are some believers that it is just a form of axial SpA with concomitant psoriasis, but also some people that think that the axial PsA is a typical disease, with typical characteristics which are different from axial disease,” Dr. Carron said.

The lack of consensus makes it difficult to estimate just how many people have axial PsA. Reported prevalences range from 5% to 70%, “all caused by which criteria that you’re using to define axial involvement,” Dr. Carron added.

There are, however, two things that can be agreed upon, according to Dr. Carron. First, the prevalence of axial involvement in people with early PsA is “much, much lower” than that of more established disease. Second, exclusive axial involvement is seen in “just a minority of PsA patients.” Most people with axial disease also have peripheral disease, he added.

Imaging findings in axial PsA “are quite similar to those seen in axial SpA,” although Dr. Carron also said that there were some distinct differences. Radiographic sacroiliitis occurs in around 25%-50% of people with axial PsA, and atypical syndesmophytes are more often found in people with axial PsA than in those with axSpA.
 

Shared Characteristics

But are axial PsA and axSpA separate diseases or part of the same disease continuum? That’s a question that is still very much open for debate, said Sofia Ramiro, MD, PhD, a senior researcher at Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, and rheumatology consultant at Zuyderland Medical Center in Heerlen, the Netherlands.

While many studies have looked to answer this question, there is a big methodological problem — the studies largely cannot be compared as they have used different definitions of axSpA.

Take a patient with inflammatory back pain, psoriasis, and oligoarthritis, Dr. Ramiro said. If the patient goes to one rheumatologist, they may get a diagnosis of axSpA, but if they go to a different rheumatologist, they may get a diagnosis of axial PsA.

“This is influenced by training, expertise, by beliefs, and by belonging to ASAS [Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society] or to GRAPPA [Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis],” Dr. Ramiro suggested. It’s “a diagnostic bias” that is very difficult to overcome and makes direct comparisons between patient populations recruited into clinical studies “extremely challenging.”

To confuse matters more, axial PsA and axSpA share common characteristics: Inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) or a higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and structural lesions in the sacroiliac joints and spine.
 

AXIS Study ‘Gives Answers’

More research into factors associated with axial PsA need to be performed to try to help define the condition and enable classification and ultimately treatment guidelines. This is where the AXIS study comes in.

The AXIS study is a joint project of ASAS and GRAPPA that was started in January 2019 with the aim of defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients who could be studied.

“The objectives of the AXIS study are to determine the frequency of axial involvement in patients with PsA; to identify the frequency of active inflammatory and structural changes on imaging; and to identify factors associated with the presence of axial involvement in PsA,” Murat Torgutalp, MD, of Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany, said at EULAR 2024.

The study population consisted of 409 consecutively recruited patients diagnosed with PsA according to CASPAR (Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis) criteria; all have had PsA for up to 10 years and were untreated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease modifying drugs at the time of inclusion.

Dr. Torgutalp, who is the study’s primary research coordinator, reported that a diagnosis of PsA was made in 37% of the population when local investigators considered available clinical, laboratory, and imaging data. However, patients’ imaging data were also centrally assessed, and when the local investigators were party to the expert imaging interpretations, the percentage of people diagnosed with PsA dropped to 27%.

“When we looked at the clinical characteristics, the presence of the back pain, particularly inflammatory back pain, HLA-B27 positivity, elevated CRP, and presence of active, inflammatory and structural changes in the sacroiliac joints and spine were associated with the final conclusion on the presence of axial involvement,” Dr. Torgutalp said.

Despite the title of his presentation being “The Axis Study Gives Answers,” Dr. Torgutalp presented lots of data without giving much insight into how they might be used. He concluded that “overall, there was a trend toward overestimation of the presence of imaging changes indicative of axial involvement across all imaging modalities” by the local investigators.

Dennis McGonagle, MB, MCH, BAO, PhD, of the University of Leeds, Leeds, England,said in an interview that the AXIS study “is a noble, international effort across multiple countries to try and better understand axial PsA.”

Dr. McGonagle, who was not involved in the study, added: “A lot of data are being generated, and a lot of analysis needs to be done to drill down to get a clear message that could influence practice.”
 

Axial PsA in the Portuguese Population

Separately, Catarina Abreu, a rheumatology intern at Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal, presented some real-world data on axial PsA from Reuma.pt.

Of 2304 patients, 854 (37.1%) reportedly had axial PsA, which had been defined as physician-reported spondylitis or the presence of imaging findings suggestive of axial involvement. This included radiographic- or MRI-detected sacroiliitis or syndesmophytes seen on axial x-rays.

The majority (78.2%) of those with an axial PsA diagnosis had concomitant peripheral involvement, with 8.1% having exclusive axial disease.

About 70% of the axial PsA diagnoses had been made using clinical or laboratory findings alone, and 30% of diagnoses was based on imaging results. Of the latter, Ms. Abreu noted that patients who had imaging data available were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive and less likely to have dactylitis, with respective odds ratios (ORs) of 3.10 and 2.42.

Individuals with axial PsA were more likely to have enthesitis (OR, 1.92), although no data were available on whether this was axial or peripheral enthesitis. Tobacco exposure was also linked to an increased chance of having axial PsA (OR, 1.66).

Ms. Abreu noted that the “scarce number of available imaging exams” and other missing data in Reuma.pt may have led to an underdiagnosis of axial PsA.

“The difference that we found between axial and peripheral [PsA] are similar to the differences found in other studies that compared axial psoriatic arthritis with axial spondyloarthritis,” Ms. Abreu said.

“So, we leave with the question that was already left before here: If these are different diseases or just different phenotypes of the same disease, and what implications will this have in the future?” Ms. Abreu concluded.

Dr. Carron received educational grants, speaker fees, or honoraria for other consultancy work from AbbVie, UCB, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, and Galapagos/Alfasigma. Dr. Ramiro is an ASAS executive committee member and received research grants or consulting/speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB. AXIS is supported by unrestricted research grants from AbbVie, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Torgutalp is the primary research coordinator for the study; he reported no financial conflicts of interest. The Reuma.pt registry was developed with the financial support of the pharmaceutical industry and is currently supported by AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sobi. Ms. Abreu reported no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — People with spondyloarthritis (SpA) who have low or stable disease activity can effectively and safely be managed using a model of patient-initiated care with or without remote monitoring, suggested the results of two separate trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting. 

In the 18-month, single-center ReMonit study that included 243 people with axial SpA (axSpA), patient-initiated care was found to be noninferior for keeping them in a low-disease activity state, compared with both usual hospital follow-up and remote digital monitoring.

Meanwhile, in the 12-month, multicenter TeleSpA study, which included 200 patients with any type of SpA, the number of hospital visits needed by people who were randomly assigned to receive patient-initiated care together with asynchronous telemonitoring was significantly lower than for the usual-care group, with no detriment to the participants’ overall health outcomes or safety. Moreover, the strategy was deemed cost-effective from a healthcare provision perspective.
 

Time to Rationalize Healthcare Resources?

People with chronic rheumatic diseases such as axSpA require long-term follow-up in specialist healthcare centers, Inger Jorid Berg, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, said when she presented the findings of the ReMonit study as a late-breaking abstract.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“Traditionally, this has been offered as prescheduled face-to-face consultations at an outpatient clinic, but remote monitoring and patient-initiated care may allow for more targeted and efficient uses of healthcare resources,” Dr. Berg said.

“The end goal of what you’re trying to do is increase the efficiency of outpatient care and provide more patient-tailored care,” Kasper Hermans, MD, said in an interview. He presented the results of the TeleSpA study. 

Dr. Hermans, who is a rheumatology fellow and PhD candidate at Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, observed during his presentation at EULAR 2024 that there is an increasing demand for rheumatology services but an expected shortfall in the future workforce. Thus, “sustainable alternative strategies are needed for optimizing the efficiency of care,” he said.

People need to have timely access to care, Dr. Hermans stressed, but perhaps alternatives to the traditional models of care where patients are seen routinely every 6 or 12 months are needed, particularly as prior work had suggested that around one-third of people who were seen by a rheumatologist perhaps did not need to be.

A strategy of patient-initiated care — which is where people are seen by a healthcare provider only if they feel that they need to and request a consultation — is therefore an attractive proposition, particularly if it is backed up with remote monitoring, which is what the TeleSpA study was testing.
 

Two Distinct Studies

ReMonit and TeleSpA were two distinct studies. While both were noninferiority trials and involved patient-initiated care and telemonitoring of outpatients with SpA, that is where the similarities generally end.

Notably, ReMonit included a very specific population of patients — all had a diagnosis of axSpA and were being treated with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and had been on a stable dose for the last 6 months. For inclusion, they also had to have inactive disease or low disease activity, as indicated by an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) < 2.1.

ReMonit’s telemonitoring strategy involved participants completing monthly questionnaires using the Dignio smartphone app. Patients first completed the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and noted whether they had experienced a flare in their disease. If they had a flare or their PGA score was 3 or higher, then they were asked to also complete the Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). If the BASDAI score was 4 or more, then the patient was called by a study nurse and offered a consultation.

“Patients in all three groups were recommended to take blood samples at the general practitioner’s or at the hospital every third month as a safety procedure when using TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Berg said.

The primary outcome was the proportion of people who remained with low disease activity (ASDAS < 2.1) at 6, 12, and 18 months in each of the three arms of the trial, which were patient-initiated care (n = 81), monthly remote monitoring (n = 80), or usual follow-up in the hospital every 6 months (n = 82).

TeleSpA on the other hand was a “much more pragmatic trial, much closer to actual care,” Dr. Hermans said. “We included axial spondyloarthritis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, or patients who had both axial and peripheral disease, including patients with psoriatic arthritis,” he said, adding that their inclusion was regardless of their baseline ASDAS based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP).

This means that patients who would otherwise have been classified at baseline as having high disease activity (by ASDAS-CRP or similar disease activity measures) could be included. The main proviso was that both the patient and their rheumatologist had to define the condition as being stable with an acceptable level of symptom control and no immediate plans to change treatment within the next 3 months.

TeleSpA’s remote monitoring strategy involved the use of SpA-Net, which Dr. Hermans and coinvestigators have described previously as “an ongoing, disease-specific, prospective, web-based registry for monitoring SpA in daily practice.” This captures a host of clinical and laboratory test information.

SpA-Net was used in both arms of the study. However, while the 100 participants in the standard-care arm completed questionnaires and had tests before every in-person visit that had been prescheduled with their rheumatologist, the 100 individuals in the patient-initiated care arm had no prescheduled in-person visits except for being seen at the start and end of the study. These patients were reminded via email to complete the necessary SpA-Net registry questionnaires at 6 months.

The primary outcome for TeleSpA was the total number of rheumatology visits, including both physical and telephone or video consultations, within a 1-year period. 
 

ReMonit Results

Berg reported that similar percentages of patients remained in a low disease activity state at 6, 12, and 18 months, regardless of the group that they had been randomized into, and that there was little change seen within the individual groups.

For instance, at 6, 12, and 18 months, 92%, 91%, and 92% of individuals in the patient-initiated arm had an ASDAS of < 2.1. Corresponding percentages for the usual-care arm were 96%, 93%, and 90% and for the remote-monitoring arm were 96%, 96%, and 94%.

Both patient-initiated care and remote monitoring were noninferior to usual care, and patient-initiated care was also noninferior to remote monitoring. There were no differences between the trial arms in terms of disease activity, measured using either ASDAS or BASDAI, at 6, 12, or 18 months.

Dr. Berg stated that “patient satisfaction was high in all three follow-up strategies, and there was the lowest resource use with patient-initiated care.” She concluded that “remote monitoring and patient-initiated care could be implemented in the follow-up of patients with axial spondyloarthritis and low disease activity.”
 

TeleSpA Results

In TeleSpA, people in the patient-initiated care and telemonitoring arm were seen a mean of 1.9 times over the course of the 1-year follow-up vs 2.6 for people in the usual care arm. The reduction was caused in part by the decrease in physical visits (1.4 vs 2.0) as there were the same mean number of telephone visits in each group. Overall, there was a 25.4% reduction in consultations comparing the patient-initiated care and telemonitoring arm with the usual-care arm.

Importantly, the intervention was noninferior regarding all of the predefined health outcomes: ASDAS, BASDAI, pain assessed using a visual analog scale, patient global assessment, and physician global assessment.

And more than 90% of participants in both groups reported having an overall good experience with their care.

Dr. Hermans noted after his presentation that an additional study had been performed where “we actively engaged with patients in the intervention group as well as healthcare providers to ask them what their experiences were with the intervention, how we could possibly improve it, and whether or not they thought that it was a valid approach to follow-up after the end of the study. And results were very, very reassuring.”

In terms of safety, eight serious adverse events were reported, but none were related to the study intervention, Dr. Hermans said. 

Dr. Hermans reported that there was “negligible difference” in the 1-year quality-adjusted life-years (+0.004, in favor of the intervention overall) and that, while healthcare costs were lower at €243/year for the entire intervention period, societal costs were higher, at €513/year vs usual care. The latter was thought to be “due to an unexpected rise in absenteeism that we think was most likely due to a small amount of outliers,” Dr. Hermans said. 

Nonetheless, using at willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/ quality-adjusted life year, he reported that the added value of patient-initiated care with remote monitoring yielded a potential net monetary benefit of +€322 from a healthcare perspective for the entire intervention period.

“We believe that these results support the fast-paced adoption of remote care interventions,” Dr. Hermans said. “In the context that I described earlier, of decreasing healthcare personnel and rising costs, we believe that this could be a valuable approach for follow-up for patients with stable axSpA.”

ReMonit was sponsored by Diakonhjemmet Hospital, and TeleSpA was sponsored by Maastricht University Medical Center, with funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Berg and Dr. Hermans had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

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

Editor’s Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

VIENNA — People with spondyloarthritis (SpA) who have low or stable disease activity can effectively and safely be managed using a model of patient-initiated care with or without remote monitoring, suggested the results of two separate trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting. 

In the 18-month, single-center ReMonit study that included 243 people with axial SpA (axSpA), patient-initiated care was found to be noninferior for keeping them in a low-disease activity state, compared with both usual hospital follow-up and remote digital monitoring.

Meanwhile, in the 12-month, multicenter TeleSpA study, which included 200 patients with any type of SpA, the number of hospital visits needed by people who were randomly assigned to receive patient-initiated care together with asynchronous telemonitoring was significantly lower than for the usual-care group, with no detriment to the participants’ overall health outcomes or safety. Moreover, the strategy was deemed cost-effective from a healthcare provision perspective.
 

Time to Rationalize Healthcare Resources?

People with chronic rheumatic diseases such as axSpA require long-term follow-up in specialist healthcare centers, Inger Jorid Berg, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, said when she presented the findings of the ReMonit study as a late-breaking abstract.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“Traditionally, this has been offered as prescheduled face-to-face consultations at an outpatient clinic, but remote monitoring and patient-initiated care may allow for more targeted and efficient uses of healthcare resources,” Dr. Berg said.

“The end goal of what you’re trying to do is increase the efficiency of outpatient care and provide more patient-tailored care,” Kasper Hermans, MD, said in an interview. He presented the results of the TeleSpA study. 

Dr. Hermans, who is a rheumatology fellow and PhD candidate at Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, observed during his presentation at EULAR 2024 that there is an increasing demand for rheumatology services but an expected shortfall in the future workforce. Thus, “sustainable alternative strategies are needed for optimizing the efficiency of care,” he said.

People need to have timely access to care, Dr. Hermans stressed, but perhaps alternatives to the traditional models of care where patients are seen routinely every 6 or 12 months are needed, particularly as prior work had suggested that around one-third of people who were seen by a rheumatologist perhaps did not need to be.

A strategy of patient-initiated care — which is where people are seen by a healthcare provider only if they feel that they need to and request a consultation — is therefore an attractive proposition, particularly if it is backed up with remote monitoring, which is what the TeleSpA study was testing.
 

Two Distinct Studies

ReMonit and TeleSpA were two distinct studies. While both were noninferiority trials and involved patient-initiated care and telemonitoring of outpatients with SpA, that is where the similarities generally end.

Notably, ReMonit included a very specific population of patients — all had a diagnosis of axSpA and were being treated with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and had been on a stable dose for the last 6 months. For inclusion, they also had to have inactive disease or low disease activity, as indicated by an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) < 2.1.

ReMonit’s telemonitoring strategy involved participants completing monthly questionnaires using the Dignio smartphone app. Patients first completed the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and noted whether they had experienced a flare in their disease. If they had a flare or their PGA score was 3 or higher, then they were asked to also complete the Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). If the BASDAI score was 4 or more, then the patient was called by a study nurse and offered a consultation.

“Patients in all three groups were recommended to take blood samples at the general practitioner’s or at the hospital every third month as a safety procedure when using TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Berg said.

The primary outcome was the proportion of people who remained with low disease activity (ASDAS < 2.1) at 6, 12, and 18 months in each of the three arms of the trial, which were patient-initiated care (n = 81), monthly remote monitoring (n = 80), or usual follow-up in the hospital every 6 months (n = 82).

TeleSpA on the other hand was a “much more pragmatic trial, much closer to actual care,” Dr. Hermans said. “We included axial spondyloarthritis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, or patients who had both axial and peripheral disease, including patients with psoriatic arthritis,” he said, adding that their inclusion was regardless of their baseline ASDAS based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP).

This means that patients who would otherwise have been classified at baseline as having high disease activity (by ASDAS-CRP or similar disease activity measures) could be included. The main proviso was that both the patient and their rheumatologist had to define the condition as being stable with an acceptable level of symptom control and no immediate plans to change treatment within the next 3 months.

TeleSpA’s remote monitoring strategy involved the use of SpA-Net, which Dr. Hermans and coinvestigators have described previously as “an ongoing, disease-specific, prospective, web-based registry for monitoring SpA in daily practice.” This captures a host of clinical and laboratory test information.

SpA-Net was used in both arms of the study. However, while the 100 participants in the standard-care arm completed questionnaires and had tests before every in-person visit that had been prescheduled with their rheumatologist, the 100 individuals in the patient-initiated care arm had no prescheduled in-person visits except for being seen at the start and end of the study. These patients were reminded via email to complete the necessary SpA-Net registry questionnaires at 6 months.

The primary outcome for TeleSpA was the total number of rheumatology visits, including both physical and telephone or video consultations, within a 1-year period. 
 

ReMonit Results

Berg reported that similar percentages of patients remained in a low disease activity state at 6, 12, and 18 months, regardless of the group that they had been randomized into, and that there was little change seen within the individual groups.

For instance, at 6, 12, and 18 months, 92%, 91%, and 92% of individuals in the patient-initiated arm had an ASDAS of < 2.1. Corresponding percentages for the usual-care arm were 96%, 93%, and 90% and for the remote-monitoring arm were 96%, 96%, and 94%.

Both patient-initiated care and remote monitoring were noninferior to usual care, and patient-initiated care was also noninferior to remote monitoring. There were no differences between the trial arms in terms of disease activity, measured using either ASDAS or BASDAI, at 6, 12, or 18 months.

Dr. Berg stated that “patient satisfaction was high in all three follow-up strategies, and there was the lowest resource use with patient-initiated care.” She concluded that “remote monitoring and patient-initiated care could be implemented in the follow-up of patients with axial spondyloarthritis and low disease activity.”
 

TeleSpA Results

In TeleSpA, people in the patient-initiated care and telemonitoring arm were seen a mean of 1.9 times over the course of the 1-year follow-up vs 2.6 for people in the usual care arm. The reduction was caused in part by the decrease in physical visits (1.4 vs 2.0) as there were the same mean number of telephone visits in each group. Overall, there was a 25.4% reduction in consultations comparing the patient-initiated care and telemonitoring arm with the usual-care arm.

Importantly, the intervention was noninferior regarding all of the predefined health outcomes: ASDAS, BASDAI, pain assessed using a visual analog scale, patient global assessment, and physician global assessment.

And more than 90% of participants in both groups reported having an overall good experience with their care.

Dr. Hermans noted after his presentation that an additional study had been performed where “we actively engaged with patients in the intervention group as well as healthcare providers to ask them what their experiences were with the intervention, how we could possibly improve it, and whether or not they thought that it was a valid approach to follow-up after the end of the study. And results were very, very reassuring.”

In terms of safety, eight serious adverse events were reported, but none were related to the study intervention, Dr. Hermans said. 

Dr. Hermans reported that there was “negligible difference” in the 1-year quality-adjusted life-years (+0.004, in favor of the intervention overall) and that, while healthcare costs were lower at €243/year for the entire intervention period, societal costs were higher, at €513/year vs usual care. The latter was thought to be “due to an unexpected rise in absenteeism that we think was most likely due to a small amount of outliers,” Dr. Hermans said. 

Nonetheless, using at willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/ quality-adjusted life year, he reported that the added value of patient-initiated care with remote monitoring yielded a potential net monetary benefit of +€322 from a healthcare perspective for the entire intervention period.

“We believe that these results support the fast-paced adoption of remote care interventions,” Dr. Hermans said. “In the context that I described earlier, of decreasing healthcare personnel and rising costs, we believe that this could be a valuable approach for follow-up for patients with stable axSpA.”

ReMonit was sponsored by Diakonhjemmet Hospital, and TeleSpA was sponsored by Maastricht University Medical Center, with funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Berg and Dr. Hermans had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

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

Editor’s Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

VIENNA — People with spondyloarthritis (SpA) who have low or stable disease activity can effectively and safely be managed using a model of patient-initiated care with or without remote monitoring, suggested the results of two separate trials presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2024 Annual Meeting. 

In the 18-month, single-center ReMonit study that included 243 people with axial SpA (axSpA), patient-initiated care was found to be noninferior for keeping them in a low-disease activity state, compared with both usual hospital follow-up and remote digital monitoring.

Meanwhile, in the 12-month, multicenter TeleSpA study, which included 200 patients with any type of SpA, the number of hospital visits needed by people who were randomly assigned to receive patient-initiated care together with asynchronous telemonitoring was significantly lower than for the usual-care group, with no detriment to the participants’ overall health outcomes or safety. Moreover, the strategy was deemed cost-effective from a healthcare provision perspective.
 

Time to Rationalize Healthcare Resources?

People with chronic rheumatic diseases such as axSpA require long-term follow-up in specialist healthcare centers, Inger Jorid Berg, MD, PhD, of Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, Norway, said when she presented the findings of the ReMonit study as a late-breaking abstract.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

“Traditionally, this has been offered as prescheduled face-to-face consultations at an outpatient clinic, but remote monitoring and patient-initiated care may allow for more targeted and efficient uses of healthcare resources,” Dr. Berg said.

“The end goal of what you’re trying to do is increase the efficiency of outpatient care and provide more patient-tailored care,” Kasper Hermans, MD, said in an interview. He presented the results of the TeleSpA study. 

Dr. Hermans, who is a rheumatology fellow and PhD candidate at Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands, observed during his presentation at EULAR 2024 that there is an increasing demand for rheumatology services but an expected shortfall in the future workforce. Thus, “sustainable alternative strategies are needed for optimizing the efficiency of care,” he said.

People need to have timely access to care, Dr. Hermans stressed, but perhaps alternatives to the traditional models of care where patients are seen routinely every 6 or 12 months are needed, particularly as prior work had suggested that around one-third of people who were seen by a rheumatologist perhaps did not need to be.

A strategy of patient-initiated care — which is where people are seen by a healthcare provider only if they feel that they need to and request a consultation — is therefore an attractive proposition, particularly if it is backed up with remote monitoring, which is what the TeleSpA study was testing.
 

Two Distinct Studies

ReMonit and TeleSpA were two distinct studies. While both were noninferiority trials and involved patient-initiated care and telemonitoring of outpatients with SpA, that is where the similarities generally end.

Notably, ReMonit included a very specific population of patients — all had a diagnosis of axSpA and were being treated with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and had been on a stable dose for the last 6 months. For inclusion, they also had to have inactive disease or low disease activity, as indicated by an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) < 2.1.

ReMonit’s telemonitoring strategy involved participants completing monthly questionnaires using the Dignio smartphone app. Patients first completed the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and noted whether they had experienced a flare in their disease. If they had a flare or their PGA score was 3 or higher, then they were asked to also complete the Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). If the BASDAI score was 4 or more, then the patient was called by a study nurse and offered a consultation.

“Patients in all three groups were recommended to take blood samples at the general practitioner’s or at the hospital every third month as a safety procedure when using TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Berg said.

The primary outcome was the proportion of people who remained with low disease activity (ASDAS < 2.1) at 6, 12, and 18 months in each of the three arms of the trial, which were patient-initiated care (n = 81), monthly remote monitoring (n = 80), or usual follow-up in the hospital every 6 months (n = 82).

TeleSpA on the other hand was a “much more pragmatic trial, much closer to actual care,” Dr. Hermans said. “We included axial spondyloarthritis, peripheral spondyloarthritis, or patients who had both axial and peripheral disease, including patients with psoriatic arthritis,” he said, adding that their inclusion was regardless of their baseline ASDAS based on C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP).

This means that patients who would otherwise have been classified at baseline as having high disease activity (by ASDAS-CRP or similar disease activity measures) could be included. The main proviso was that both the patient and their rheumatologist had to define the condition as being stable with an acceptable level of symptom control and no immediate plans to change treatment within the next 3 months.

TeleSpA’s remote monitoring strategy involved the use of SpA-Net, which Dr. Hermans and coinvestigators have described previously as “an ongoing, disease-specific, prospective, web-based registry for monitoring SpA in daily practice.” This captures a host of clinical and laboratory test information.

SpA-Net was used in both arms of the study. However, while the 100 participants in the standard-care arm completed questionnaires and had tests before every in-person visit that had been prescheduled with their rheumatologist, the 100 individuals in the patient-initiated care arm had no prescheduled in-person visits except for being seen at the start and end of the study. These patients were reminded via email to complete the necessary SpA-Net registry questionnaires at 6 months.

The primary outcome for TeleSpA was the total number of rheumatology visits, including both physical and telephone or video consultations, within a 1-year period. 
 

ReMonit Results

Berg reported that similar percentages of patients remained in a low disease activity state at 6, 12, and 18 months, regardless of the group that they had been randomized into, and that there was little change seen within the individual groups.

For instance, at 6, 12, and 18 months, 92%, 91%, and 92% of individuals in the patient-initiated arm had an ASDAS of < 2.1. Corresponding percentages for the usual-care arm were 96%, 93%, and 90% and for the remote-monitoring arm were 96%, 96%, and 94%.

Both patient-initiated care and remote monitoring were noninferior to usual care, and patient-initiated care was also noninferior to remote monitoring. There were no differences between the trial arms in terms of disease activity, measured using either ASDAS or BASDAI, at 6, 12, or 18 months.

Dr. Berg stated that “patient satisfaction was high in all three follow-up strategies, and there was the lowest resource use with patient-initiated care.” She concluded that “remote monitoring and patient-initiated care could be implemented in the follow-up of patients with axial spondyloarthritis and low disease activity.”
 

TeleSpA Results

In TeleSpA, people in the patient-initiated care and telemonitoring arm were seen a mean of 1.9 times over the course of the 1-year follow-up vs 2.6 for people in the usual care arm. The reduction was caused in part by the decrease in physical visits (1.4 vs 2.0) as there were the same mean number of telephone visits in each group. Overall, there was a 25.4% reduction in consultations comparing the patient-initiated care and telemonitoring arm with the usual-care arm.

Importantly, the intervention was noninferior regarding all of the predefined health outcomes: ASDAS, BASDAI, pain assessed using a visual analog scale, patient global assessment, and physician global assessment.

And more than 90% of participants in both groups reported having an overall good experience with their care.

Dr. Hermans noted after his presentation that an additional study had been performed where “we actively engaged with patients in the intervention group as well as healthcare providers to ask them what their experiences were with the intervention, how we could possibly improve it, and whether or not they thought that it was a valid approach to follow-up after the end of the study. And results were very, very reassuring.”

In terms of safety, eight serious adverse events were reported, but none were related to the study intervention, Dr. Hermans said. 

Dr. Hermans reported that there was “negligible difference” in the 1-year quality-adjusted life-years (+0.004, in favor of the intervention overall) and that, while healthcare costs were lower at €243/year for the entire intervention period, societal costs were higher, at €513/year vs usual care. The latter was thought to be “due to an unexpected rise in absenteeism that we think was most likely due to a small amount of outliers,” Dr. Hermans said. 

Nonetheless, using at willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/ quality-adjusted life year, he reported that the added value of patient-initiated care with remote monitoring yielded a potential net monetary benefit of +€322 from a healthcare perspective for the entire intervention period.

“We believe that these results support the fast-paced adoption of remote care interventions,” Dr. Hermans said. “In the context that I described earlier, of decreasing healthcare personnel and rising costs, we believe that this could be a valuable approach for follow-up for patients with stable axSpA.”

ReMonit was sponsored by Diakonhjemmet Hospital, and TeleSpA was sponsored by Maastricht University Medical Center, with funding from the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Berg and Dr. Hermans had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

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

Editor’s Note: This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

VIENNA — The investigational interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor izokibep hit its mark when it came to improving overall disease activity in people with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a phase 2b/3 trial, but it was no better than placebo at reducing inflammation of the entheses. 

This apparent and unexpected lack of effect in the entheses was a key talking point after Philip J. Mease, MD, presented the late-breaking trial findings at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

At just 18.6 kilodaltons in size, izokibep is just “one tenth the size of a standard monoclonal antibody” and is classed as a small protein therapeutic, Dr. Mease said. It has a “very tight” binding affinity for IL-17A, and because it also binds to albumin, it has a prolonged half-life compared with other IL-17 inhibitors. Potentially, it should be able to “penetrate into difficult areas,” such as the entheses, he said.
 

Prespecified Enthesitis Analysis

However, results of a prespecified secondary analysis conducted in 209 of the 343 trial participants who had received treatment showed no significant difference in the proportions with enthesis resolution at 16 weeks, defined as a Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) of 0.

Comparing two dosing regimens of izokibep 160 mg once weekly (QW) vs every other week (Q2W) with placebo, enthesitis resolution was seen in 45%, 56%, and 47%, respectively, of patients.

The LEI is “sometimes subject to problems with evaluation because of placebo response, which is what we see here,” noted Dr. Mease, director of rheumatology research at the Providence Swedish Medical Center and a rheumatology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

An exploratory analysis showed that there was a better response for izokibep vs placebo if the analysis included only patients with higher LEI scores at baseline, at 8.0% (n = 12) for placebo, 22.0% (n = 9) for izokibep 160 mg QW, and 50.0% (n = 12) for izokibep 160 mg Q2W.
 

Main Efficacy Data

The primary endpoint for the trial was the proportion of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks. This showed a clear advantage for treatment with izokibep 160 QW and Q2W compared with placebo, with a respective 40%, 43%, and 15% of patients meeting this endpoint.

Corresponding ACR20 response rates were 59%, 64%, and 35%, respectively; ACR70 response rates were a respective 25%, 23%, and 5%.

In addition to ACR70, izokibep 160 QW and Q2W met a number of other “high hurdle” efficacy endpoints better than did placebo, Dr. Mease reported. A 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) was achieved by a respective 64%, 58%, and 12% of patients, and a 100% reduction in this index (PASI100) was achieved by a respective 51%, 47%, and 12%. And 41%, 42%, and 14% of patients, respectively, met the criteria for minimal disease activity.
 

Patient Population

Mease pointed out during his presentation that the trial included patients with adult-onset PsA that had been ongoing for ≥ 6 months. Patients had to have at least three tender or swollen joints and an inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to commonly used front-line therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

In fact, around half of the participants across the three treatment arms had received prior csDMARDs, and almost a quarter had received a TNFi.

The mean duration of disease was around 7 years, the average age was about 50 years, and the majority of the participants were White individuals. There were more women than men in the placebo vs the izokibep arms (43.4% vs about 60.0%).
 

Adverse Events

Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate. Very few (< 1% to 4%) led to any need to discontinue the drug.

Serious adverse events occurred at low rates in all study arms: 0.8% for placebo, 2.7% for izokibep QW, and 1.8% for izokibep Q2W.

One patient each (0.9%) in the izokibep arms developed ulcerative colitis, whereas none in the placebo group did. Only two patients developed candidiasis. One was in the placebo group and had a skin infection, and the other was an oral infection in the QW izokibep arm.

There were no cases of uveitis, suicidal ideation, or deaths reported.
 

Comments on the Study

During the discussion that followed the presentation, Walter P. Maksymowych, MBChB, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, addressed the dosing regimens used.

“Looking at the side effect profile and then looking at the response rate, comparing the weekly dosing and every 2 weeks, do you think, in hindsight, you might be remiss that there wasn’t an additional dosing on a monthly basis, especially since this is a construct that is meant to prolong the half-life of the molecule?” he asked, adding that perhaps this should be something to consider in future studies.

Mease responded that there had been a fourth dosing arm in the trial — izokibep 80 mg once a month — but because there were only eight patients, the data were not sufficiently robust to analyze. 

Commenting on the study, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said: “It’s a pretty standard phase 2b/3 study,” and the outcomes were not wildly different from what has been seen with other IL-17A inhibitors.

“In phase 2, the enthesitis data looked really good; in phase 3, the enthesitis data looks the same as for any other IL-17 inhibitor,” Dr. Coates said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The investigational interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor izokibep hit its mark when it came to improving overall disease activity in people with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a phase 2b/3 trial, but it was no better than placebo at reducing inflammation of the entheses. 

This apparent and unexpected lack of effect in the entheses was a key talking point after Philip J. Mease, MD, presented the late-breaking trial findings at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

At just 18.6 kilodaltons in size, izokibep is just “one tenth the size of a standard monoclonal antibody” and is classed as a small protein therapeutic, Dr. Mease said. It has a “very tight” binding affinity for IL-17A, and because it also binds to albumin, it has a prolonged half-life compared with other IL-17 inhibitors. Potentially, it should be able to “penetrate into difficult areas,” such as the entheses, he said.
 

Prespecified Enthesitis Analysis

However, results of a prespecified secondary analysis conducted in 209 of the 343 trial participants who had received treatment showed no significant difference in the proportions with enthesis resolution at 16 weeks, defined as a Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) of 0.

Comparing two dosing regimens of izokibep 160 mg once weekly (QW) vs every other week (Q2W) with placebo, enthesitis resolution was seen in 45%, 56%, and 47%, respectively, of patients.

The LEI is “sometimes subject to problems with evaluation because of placebo response, which is what we see here,” noted Dr. Mease, director of rheumatology research at the Providence Swedish Medical Center and a rheumatology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

An exploratory analysis showed that there was a better response for izokibep vs placebo if the analysis included only patients with higher LEI scores at baseline, at 8.0% (n = 12) for placebo, 22.0% (n = 9) for izokibep 160 mg QW, and 50.0% (n = 12) for izokibep 160 mg Q2W.
 

Main Efficacy Data

The primary endpoint for the trial was the proportion of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks. This showed a clear advantage for treatment with izokibep 160 QW and Q2W compared with placebo, with a respective 40%, 43%, and 15% of patients meeting this endpoint.

Corresponding ACR20 response rates were 59%, 64%, and 35%, respectively; ACR70 response rates were a respective 25%, 23%, and 5%.

In addition to ACR70, izokibep 160 QW and Q2W met a number of other “high hurdle” efficacy endpoints better than did placebo, Dr. Mease reported. A 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) was achieved by a respective 64%, 58%, and 12% of patients, and a 100% reduction in this index (PASI100) was achieved by a respective 51%, 47%, and 12%. And 41%, 42%, and 14% of patients, respectively, met the criteria for minimal disease activity.
 

Patient Population

Mease pointed out during his presentation that the trial included patients with adult-onset PsA that had been ongoing for ≥ 6 months. Patients had to have at least three tender or swollen joints and an inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to commonly used front-line therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

In fact, around half of the participants across the three treatment arms had received prior csDMARDs, and almost a quarter had received a TNFi.

The mean duration of disease was around 7 years, the average age was about 50 years, and the majority of the participants were White individuals. There were more women than men in the placebo vs the izokibep arms (43.4% vs about 60.0%).
 

Adverse Events

Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate. Very few (< 1% to 4%) led to any need to discontinue the drug.

Serious adverse events occurred at low rates in all study arms: 0.8% for placebo, 2.7% for izokibep QW, and 1.8% for izokibep Q2W.

One patient each (0.9%) in the izokibep arms developed ulcerative colitis, whereas none in the placebo group did. Only two patients developed candidiasis. One was in the placebo group and had a skin infection, and the other was an oral infection in the QW izokibep arm.

There were no cases of uveitis, suicidal ideation, or deaths reported.
 

Comments on the Study

During the discussion that followed the presentation, Walter P. Maksymowych, MBChB, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, addressed the dosing regimens used.

“Looking at the side effect profile and then looking at the response rate, comparing the weekly dosing and every 2 weeks, do you think, in hindsight, you might be remiss that there wasn’t an additional dosing on a monthly basis, especially since this is a construct that is meant to prolong the half-life of the molecule?” he asked, adding that perhaps this should be something to consider in future studies.

Mease responded that there had been a fourth dosing arm in the trial — izokibep 80 mg once a month — but because there were only eight patients, the data were not sufficiently robust to analyze. 

Commenting on the study, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said: “It’s a pretty standard phase 2b/3 study,” and the outcomes were not wildly different from what has been seen with other IL-17A inhibitors.

“In phase 2, the enthesitis data looked really good; in phase 3, the enthesitis data looks the same as for any other IL-17 inhibitor,” Dr. Coates said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The investigational interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor izokibep hit its mark when it came to improving overall disease activity in people with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a phase 2b/3 trial, but it was no better than placebo at reducing inflammation of the entheses. 

This apparent and unexpected lack of effect in the entheses was a key talking point after Philip J. Mease, MD, presented the late-breaking trial findings at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Sara Freeman/Medscape Medical News

At just 18.6 kilodaltons in size, izokibep is just “one tenth the size of a standard monoclonal antibody” and is classed as a small protein therapeutic, Dr. Mease said. It has a “very tight” binding affinity for IL-17A, and because it also binds to albumin, it has a prolonged half-life compared with other IL-17 inhibitors. Potentially, it should be able to “penetrate into difficult areas,” such as the entheses, he said.
 

Prespecified Enthesitis Analysis

However, results of a prespecified secondary analysis conducted in 209 of the 343 trial participants who had received treatment showed no significant difference in the proportions with enthesis resolution at 16 weeks, defined as a Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) of 0.

Comparing two dosing regimens of izokibep 160 mg once weekly (QW) vs every other week (Q2W) with placebo, enthesitis resolution was seen in 45%, 56%, and 47%, respectively, of patients.

The LEI is “sometimes subject to problems with evaluation because of placebo response, which is what we see here,” noted Dr. Mease, director of rheumatology research at the Providence Swedish Medical Center and a rheumatology professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.

An exploratory analysis showed that there was a better response for izokibep vs placebo if the analysis included only patients with higher LEI scores at baseline, at 8.0% (n = 12) for placebo, 22.0% (n = 9) for izokibep 160 mg QW, and 50.0% (n = 12) for izokibep 160 mg Q2W.
 

Main Efficacy Data

The primary endpoint for the trial was the proportion of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks. This showed a clear advantage for treatment with izokibep 160 QW and Q2W compared with placebo, with a respective 40%, 43%, and 15% of patients meeting this endpoint.

Corresponding ACR20 response rates were 59%, 64%, and 35%, respectively; ACR70 response rates were a respective 25%, 23%, and 5%.

In addition to ACR70, izokibep 160 QW and Q2W met a number of other “high hurdle” efficacy endpoints better than did placebo, Dr. Mease reported. A 90% reduction from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90) was achieved by a respective 64%, 58%, and 12% of patients, and a 100% reduction in this index (PASI100) was achieved by a respective 51%, 47%, and 12%. And 41%, 42%, and 14% of patients, respectively, met the criteria for minimal disease activity.
 

Patient Population

Mease pointed out during his presentation that the trial included patients with adult-onset PsA that had been ongoing for ≥ 6 months. Patients had to have at least three tender or swollen joints and an inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to commonly used front-line therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

In fact, around half of the participants across the three treatment arms had received prior csDMARDs, and almost a quarter had received a TNFi.

The mean duration of disease was around 7 years, the average age was about 50 years, and the majority of the participants were White individuals. There were more women than men in the placebo vs the izokibep arms (43.4% vs about 60.0%).
 

Adverse Events

Injection site reactions were the most common adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate. Very few (< 1% to 4%) led to any need to discontinue the drug.

Serious adverse events occurred at low rates in all study arms: 0.8% for placebo, 2.7% for izokibep QW, and 1.8% for izokibep Q2W.

One patient each (0.9%) in the izokibep arms developed ulcerative colitis, whereas none in the placebo group did. Only two patients developed candidiasis. One was in the placebo group and had a skin infection, and the other was an oral infection in the QW izokibep arm.

There were no cases of uveitis, suicidal ideation, or deaths reported.
 

Comments on the Study

During the discussion that followed the presentation, Walter P. Maksymowych, MBChB, of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, addressed the dosing regimens used.

“Looking at the side effect profile and then looking at the response rate, comparing the weekly dosing and every 2 weeks, do you think, in hindsight, you might be remiss that there wasn’t an additional dosing on a monthly basis, especially since this is a construct that is meant to prolong the half-life of the molecule?” he asked, adding that perhaps this should be something to consider in future studies.

Mease responded that there had been a fourth dosing arm in the trial — izokibep 80 mg once a month — but because there were only eight patients, the data were not sufficiently robust to analyze. 

Commenting on the study, Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, said: “It’s a pretty standard phase 2b/3 study,” and the outcomes were not wildly different from what has been seen with other IL-17A inhibitors.

“In phase 2, the enthesitis data looked really good; in phase 3, the enthesitis data looks the same as for any other IL-17 inhibitor,” Dr. Coates said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.