User login
Differentiating hypersensitivity reactions to monoclonal antibodies
MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.
Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction
Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.
IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.
Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.
“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.
Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.
Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.
Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.
Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
Management of reactions
A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.
The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.
If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.
In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).
If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.
For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.
The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
Top offending monoclonal antibodies
Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.
Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.
“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.
Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction
Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.
IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.
Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.
“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.
Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.
Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.
Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.
Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
Management of reactions
A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.
The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.
If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.
In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).
If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.
For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.
The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
Top offending monoclonal antibodies
Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.
Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.
“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
MAUI, HAWAII – Desensitization is a powerful and effective tool in patients with certain types of hypersensitivity reactions to therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, but it’s best considered a last resort reserved for individuals with no options left other than the offending biologic, Anna Postolova, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Why so selective? Desensitization is considered a high-risk intervention. It’s typically done as an inpatient procedure involving an overnight hospital stay followed by an elaborate 12-step protocol involving administration of small quantities of the culprit biologic in ascending concentrations over a 5- to 6-hour period.
Moreover, for an intravenous agent, such as infliximab (Remicade), desensitization has to be repeated prior to giving every dose of the biologic. So it makes sense to skip desensitization and simply switch to an alternative tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or a different class of biologic unless experience has shown that the culprit monoclonal antibody is the only one that works for that patient. It’s known, for example, that infliximab has no crossreactivity with adalimumab (Humira), explained Dr. Postolova, a dual rheumatologist and allergist/immunologist at Stanford (Calif.) University.
Defining type and severity of the hypersensitivity reaction
Dr. Postolova favors the hypersensitivity reaction classification system developed by Mariana Castells, MD, PhD, and coworkers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
They divide the field into immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions arise rapidly, between minutes and a few hours. They can be categorized as infusion reactions, cytokine-release reactions, and IgE-mediated reactions. Phenotypically, infusion reactions and cytokine-release reactions are typically characterized by various combinations of chills, fever, flushing, hypertension, tachycardia, nausea, vomiting, syncope, and shortness of breath.
IgE-mediated reactions can also involve flushing and shortness of breath, and in addition itch, urticaria, and hypotension. These are anaphylactic reactions. Neither hypertension nor fever is part of the anaphylactic picture; those findings point instead to an infusion reaction or cytokine-release reaction.
Most allergists grade reaction severity on a 1-3 scale. Grade 1 reactions are considered mild and involve symptoms limited to the skin, such as flushing, or a single other organ system.
“That being said, if my patient is having a reaction with bronchospasm, I consider that a moderate, grade 2 reaction, and I stop the infusion. There’s only so much you can do for bronchospasm. It’s a very serious reaction,” Dr. Postolova observed.
Grade 2 reactions ordinarily involve two or more organ systems, but without hypotension or cyanosis. Grade 3 reactions are severe anaphylactic reactions with cardiovascular and/or neurologic compromise.
Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are of two types: serum sickness–like reactions and type IV cell-mediated mucocutaneous reactions.
Type IV reactions can range from a mild maculopapular rash to erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms). Onset of type IV reactions can occur after 12 hours up to several weeks after exposure.
Serum sickness–like reactions typically begin 5-7 days after the infusion. These reactions are marked by evidence of immune overactivation: fever, arthralgia, arthritis, malaise, purpura, skin rash, and even renal failure.
Management of reactions
A patient with a grade 3 reaction who needs to continue using the culprit monoclonal antibody should be referred to an allergist for skin testing in an effort to identify an IgE-mediated reaction.
The timing of the referral for skin testing is important: The allergist wants to test roughly 4-6 weeks after the hypersensitivity reaction. Test too early and the results will be uninformative because the patient will still be anergic. On the other hand, after 7-8 weeks the patient will have lost the allergy. So there is a sweet spot.
If the patient is skin test positive – with the caveat that skin testing in this setting is not well validated – then the allergist will suggest desensitization, usually as an inpatient.
In contrast, infusion reactions can be handled in the rheumatologist’s infusion center. They are self-limited upon repeat exposure with premedication using antihistamines, NSAIDs, oral or injectable steroids, and perhaps montelukast (Singulair).
If a patient initially thought to have an infusion reaction continues to experience reactions even after the biologic is being delivered more slowly and under the protection of premedication, it’s time to consider the possibility that what’s really going on is a cytokine-release reaction or an IgE-mediated reaction. Diagnostic skin testing is in order.
For a skin test–negative patient with a suspected cytokine-release reaction, the allergist may propose a therapeutic challenge. This is reserved for patients who the allergist believe will not experience an immediate reaction, and unlike desensitization it’s not an intervention intended to induce drug tolerance. The challenge involves giving 10% of a full dose of the biologic, waiting in the allergist’s office for 30-60 minutes, then giving the other 90% of the medication, followed by an hour of in-office observation.
The solution to severe type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions is strict medication avoidance, not desensitization, according to Dr. Postolova.
Top offending monoclonal antibodies
Infliximab and rituximab (Rituxan) are the most common culprits when it comes to immediate hypersensitivity reactions. About 10% of infliximab-treated patients develop these reactions. Although the reaction can occur with the first dose, the peak incidence is with the seventh infusion. Patients with anti-infliximab IgG antibodies are at 140%-300% increased risk; however, concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy lessens that risk.
Infusion reactions or cytokine-release reactions occur upon the first infusion of rituximab in about 25% of treated rheumatology patients and in a higher proportion of cancer patients. Most of these reactions are mild and don’t recur when the biologic is administered more slowly and with premedication. Severe recurrent reactions upon subsequent exposure are much more likely to be an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction.
“Stop the medication, send the patient to your local allergist for skin testing, and they’ll use a desensitization protocol if rituximab is the best drug for your patient,” Dr. Postolova advised.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020
Financial incentives affect the adoption of biosimilars
during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.
The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.
Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
An examination of pharmacy data
The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.
The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).
Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost
The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.
Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.
In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.
Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...
“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”
The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”
European governments incentivize use of biosimilars
Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.
In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.
Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.
SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.
during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.
The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.
Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
An examination of pharmacy data
The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.
The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).
Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost
The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.
Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.
In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.
Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...
“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”
The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”
European governments incentivize use of biosimilars
Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.
In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.
Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.
SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.
during the same time period in 2015-2019, according to an analysis published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.
The use of the biosimilars also was associated with cost savings at the VAMC, but not at the academic medical center, which illustrates that insufficient financial incentives can delay the adoption of biosimilars and the health care system’s realization of cost savings, according to the authors.
Medicare, which is not allowed to negotiate drug prices, is one of the largest payers for infused therapies. Medicare reimbursement for infused therapies is based on the latter’s average selling price (ASP) during the previous quarter. Institutions may negotiate purchase prices with drug manufacturers and receive Medicare reimbursement. Biosimilars generally have lower ASPs than their corresponding reference therapies, and biosimilar manufacturers may have less room to negotiate prices than reference therapy manufacturers. Consequently, a given institution might have a greater incentive to use reference products than to use biosimilars.
An examination of pharmacy data
The VA negotiates drug prices for all of its medical centers and has mandated that clinicians prefer biosimilars to their corresponding reference therapies, so Joshua F. Baker, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, both in Philadelphia, and his colleagues hypothesized that the adoption of biosimilars had proceeded more quickly at a VAMC than at a nearby academic medical center.
The investigators examined pharmacy data from the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) electronic medical record and the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC to compare the frequency of prescribing biosimilars at these sites between Jan. 1, 2015, and May 31, 2019. Dr. Baker and his associates focused specifically on reference infliximab (Remicade) and the reference noninfusion therapies filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) and on biosimilars of these therapies (infliximab-dyyb [Inflectra], infliximab-abda [Renflexis], filgrastim-sndz [Zarxio], and pegfilgrastim-jmdb [Fulphila]).
Because Medicare was the predominant payer, the researchers estimated reimbursement for reference and biosimilar infliximabs according to the Medicare Part B reimbursement policy. They defined an institution’s incentive to use a given therapy as the difference between the reimbursement and acquisition cost for that therapy. Dr. Baker and colleagues compared the incentives for UPHS with those for the VAMC.
VAMC saved 81% of reference product cost
The researchers identified 15,761 infusions of infliximab at UPHS and 446 at the VAMC during the study period. The proportion of infusions that used the reference product was 99% at UPHS and 62% at the VAMC. ASPs for biosimilar infliximab have been consistently lower than those for the reference product since July 2017. In December 2017, the VAMC switched to the biosimilar infliximab.
Institutional incentives based on Medicare Part B reimbursement and acquisitions costs for reference and biosimilar infliximab have been similar since 2018. In 2019, the institutional incentive favored the reference product by $49-$64 per 100-mg vial. But at the VAMC, the cost per 100-mg vial was $623.48 for the reference product and $115.58 for the biosimilar Renflexis. Purchasing the biosimilar thus yielded a savings of 81%. The current costs for the therapies are $546 and $116, respectively.
In addition, Dr. Baker and colleagues identified 46,683 orders for filgrastim or pegfilgrastim at UPHS. Approximately 90% of the orders were for either of the two reference products despite the ASP of biosimilar filgrastim being approximately 40% lower than that of its reference product. At the VAMC, about 88% of orders were for the reference products. Biosimilars became available in 2016. UPHS began using them at a modest rate, but their adoption was greater at the VAMC, which designated them as preferred products.
Tendering and a nationwide policy mandating use of biosimilars have resulted in financial savings for the VAMC, wrote Dr. Baker and colleagues. “These data suggest that, with current Medicare Part B reimbursement policy, the absence of financial incentives to encourage use of infliximab biosimilars has resulted in slower uptake of biosimilar use at institutions outside of the VA system. The implications of this are a slower reduction in costs to the health care system, since decreases in ASP over time are predicated on negotiations at the institutional level, which have been gradual and stepwise. ...
“Although some of our results may not be applicable to other geographical regions of the U.S., the comparison of two affiliated institutions in geographical proximity and with shared health care providers is a strength,” they continued. “Our findings should be replicated using national VAMC data or data from other health care systems.”
The researchers said that their findings may not apply to noninfused therapies, which are not covered under Medicare Part B, and they did not directly study the impact of pharmacy benefit managers. However, they noted that their data on filgrastim and pegfilgrastim support the hypothesis that pharmacy benefit managers receive “incentives that continue to promote the use of reference products that have higher manufacturer’s list prices, which likely will limit the uptake of both infused and injectable biosimilar therapies over time.” They said that “this finding has important implications for when noninfused biosimilars (e.g. etanercept and adalimumab) are eventually introduced to the U.S. market.”
European governments incentivize use of biosimilars
Government and institutional incentives have increased the adoption of biosimilars in Europe, wrote Guro Lovik Goll, MD, and Tore Kristian Kvien, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, in an accompanying editorial. Norway and Denmark have annual national tender systems in which biosimilars and reference products compete. The price of infliximab biosimilar was 39% lower than the reference product in 2014 and 69% lower in 2015. “Competition has caused dramatically lower prices both for biosimilars and also for the originator drugs competing with them,” wrote the authors.
In 2015, the government of Denmark mandated that patients on infliximab be switched to a biosimilar, and patients in Norway also have been switched to biosimilars. The use of etanercept in Norway increased by 40% from 2016 to 2019, and the use of infliximab has increased by more than threefold since 2015. “In Norway, the consequence of competition, national tenders, and availability of biosimilars have led to better access to therapy for more people in need of biologic drugs, while at the same time showing a total cost reduction of biologics for use in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology,” wrote the authors.
Health care costs $10,000 per capita in the United States, compared with $5,300 for other wealthy countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Low life expectancy and high infant mortality in the U.S. indicate that high costs are not associated with better outcomes. “As Americans seem to lose out on the cost-cutting potential of biosimilars, this missed opportunity is set to get even more expensive,” the authors concluded.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Diabetes Association contributed funding for the study. Dr. Baker reported receiving consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Gilead, and another author reported receiving research support paid to his institution by Pfizer and UCB, as well as receiving consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goll and Dr. Kvien both reported receiving fees for speaking and/or consulting from numerous pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer.
SOURCES: Baker JF et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.1002/art.41277.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
‘We’re in great distress here,’ infusion center CMO says
Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.
“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”
In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”
He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”
Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.
Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”
Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.
“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”
In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”
He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”
Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.
Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”
Count Vikram Sengupta, MD, among the slew of health care workers feeling overwhelmed by the impact that COVID-19 is having on the delivery of health care in Manhattan and its surrounding boroughs.
“Nobody in the country is suffering like New York City,” said Dr. Sengupta, chief medical officer of Thrivewell Infusion, which operates three stand-alone infusion centers in the region: a four-chair center in Crown Heights, a 10-chair center in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and an eight-chair center in Manhasset. “We have 30%-50% of all cases in the country. I’ve been reading the news, and some people think this thing is going away. We’re in great distress here. There need to be new strategies moving forward. The whole world has changed. Our whole approach to ambulatory care has changed.”
In early March 2020, when it became clear that New York hospitals would face a tidal wave of citizens infected with COVID-19, Thrivewell began to receive an influx of referrals originating from concerned patients, providers, payers, and even large integrated health care systems, all in an effort to help prevent infectious exposure through infusion in hospital-based settings. “We are trying to accommodate them as swiftly as possible,” said Dr. Sengupta, who was interviewed for this story on April 9. “There’s been a huge uptick from that standpoint. We’ve made sure that we’ve kept our facilities clean by employing standards that have been released by the CDC, as well as by the major academic centers who are dealing with this firsthand, and also with guidance from the National Infusion Center Association.”
He and his colleagues launched a pop-up infusion center in the Bronx to help offload Montefiore Medical Center, “because they’re so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that they need help taking care of the autoimmune patients,” Dr. Sengupta said. “That’s the role we’re playing. We’ve made our resources available to these centers in a very flexible way in order to ensure that we do the best thing we can for everybody.”
Thrivewell is also deploying a mobile infusion unit to recovered COVID-19 patients who require an infusion for their autoimmune disease, in order to minimize the risk of contamination and transmission in their stand-alone centers. The RV-sized unit, about the size of a Bloodmobile, is equipped with infusion chairs and staffed by a physician and nurse practitioner. “The objective is continuant care and reduction of cross-contamination, and also, on a broader health care systems level, to ensure that we as ambulatory infusion center providers can offload an overburdened system,” he said.
Dr. Sengupta, who has assisted on COVID-19 inpatient wards at New York University as a volunteer, is also leading a trial of a stem cell-derived therapy developed by Israel-based Pluristem Therapeutics, to treat New York–area patients severely ill from COVID-19 infection. “There are reports from Wuhan, China, in which clinicians are delivering IV mesenchymal stem cells to patients who are on mechanical ventilators, and the patients are getting better,” he said. “I have initiated a study in which we have three cohorts: One is the outpatient setting in which we are trying to treat COVID-19 patients who have hypoxia but have been turned away from overwhelmed EDs and need some therapy. We will be converting one of our infusion centers to conduct this trial. We are also going to be administering this [stem cell-derived therapy] to COVID-19 patients in ICUs, in EDs, and on med-surg floors throughout the city.”
JAK inhibitors may increase risk of herpes zoster
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).
Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.
Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.
“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.
Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).
“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.
Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.
“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”
The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.
“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.
The multiple different cytokines contributing to intestinal inflammation in IBD patients have been a major challenge in the design of therapies. Because the JAK signaling pathway (comprised of JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) is required for responses to a broad range of cytokines, therapies that inhibit JAK signaling have been an active area of interest. A simultaneous and important concern, however, has been the potential for adverse consequences when inhibiting the breadth of immune and hematopoietic molecules that depend on JAK family members for their functions. This meta-analysis by Olivera et al. examined adverse outcomes of four different JAK inhibitors in clinical trials across four immune-mediated diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis), finding that herpes zoster infection was significantly increased (relative risk, 1.57). In contrast, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were not at a significantly increased risk for various other adverse events.
Reduced dosing of JAK inhibitors has been implemented as a means of improving safety profiles in select immune-mediated diseases. Another approach is more selective JAK inhibition, although it is unclear whether this will eliminate the risk of herpes zoster infection. In the current meta-analysis, about 87% of the studies had evaluated tofacitinib treatment, which inhibits both JAK1 and JAK3; more selective JAK inhibitors could not be evaluated in an equivalent manner. Of note, JAK1 is required for signaling by various cytokines that participate in the response to viruses, including type I IFNs and gamma c family members (such as IL-2 and IL-15); therefore, even the more selective JAK1 inhibitors do not leave this immune function fully intact. However, simply reducing the number of JAK family members inhibited simultaneously may be sufficient to reduce risk.
JAK inhibitors warrant further evaluation as additional infectious challenges arise, particularly with respect to viruses. In addition, more selective targeting of JAK inhibition of intestinal tissues may ultimately reduce systemic effects, including the risk of herpes zoster.
Clara Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, section of digestive diseases, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The multiple different cytokines contributing to intestinal inflammation in IBD patients have been a major challenge in the design of therapies. Because the JAK signaling pathway (comprised of JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) is required for responses to a broad range of cytokines, therapies that inhibit JAK signaling have been an active area of interest. A simultaneous and important concern, however, has been the potential for adverse consequences when inhibiting the breadth of immune and hematopoietic molecules that depend on JAK family members for their functions. This meta-analysis by Olivera et al. examined adverse outcomes of four different JAK inhibitors in clinical trials across four immune-mediated diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis), finding that herpes zoster infection was significantly increased (relative risk, 1.57). In contrast, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were not at a significantly increased risk for various other adverse events.
Reduced dosing of JAK inhibitors has been implemented as a means of improving safety profiles in select immune-mediated diseases. Another approach is more selective JAK inhibition, although it is unclear whether this will eliminate the risk of herpes zoster infection. In the current meta-analysis, about 87% of the studies had evaluated tofacitinib treatment, which inhibits both JAK1 and JAK3; more selective JAK inhibitors could not be evaluated in an equivalent manner. Of note, JAK1 is required for signaling by various cytokines that participate in the response to viruses, including type I IFNs and gamma c family members (such as IL-2 and IL-15); therefore, even the more selective JAK1 inhibitors do not leave this immune function fully intact. However, simply reducing the number of JAK family members inhibited simultaneously may be sufficient to reduce risk.
JAK inhibitors warrant further evaluation as additional infectious challenges arise, particularly with respect to viruses. In addition, more selective targeting of JAK inhibition of intestinal tissues may ultimately reduce systemic effects, including the risk of herpes zoster.
Clara Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, section of digestive diseases, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The multiple different cytokines contributing to intestinal inflammation in IBD patients have been a major challenge in the design of therapies. Because the JAK signaling pathway (comprised of JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) is required for responses to a broad range of cytokines, therapies that inhibit JAK signaling have been an active area of interest. A simultaneous and important concern, however, has been the potential for adverse consequences when inhibiting the breadth of immune and hematopoietic molecules that depend on JAK family members for their functions. This meta-analysis by Olivera et al. examined adverse outcomes of four different JAK inhibitors in clinical trials across four immune-mediated diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, IBD, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis), finding that herpes zoster infection was significantly increased (relative risk, 1.57). In contrast, patients treated with JAK inhibitors were not at a significantly increased risk for various other adverse events.
Reduced dosing of JAK inhibitors has been implemented as a means of improving safety profiles in select immune-mediated diseases. Another approach is more selective JAK inhibition, although it is unclear whether this will eliminate the risk of herpes zoster infection. In the current meta-analysis, about 87% of the studies had evaluated tofacitinib treatment, which inhibits both JAK1 and JAK3; more selective JAK inhibitors could not be evaluated in an equivalent manner. Of note, JAK1 is required for signaling by various cytokines that participate in the response to viruses, including type I IFNs and gamma c family members (such as IL-2 and IL-15); therefore, even the more selective JAK1 inhibitors do not leave this immune function fully intact. However, simply reducing the number of JAK family members inhibited simultaneously may be sufficient to reduce risk.
JAK inhibitors warrant further evaluation as additional infectious challenges arise, particularly with respect to viruses. In addition, more selective targeting of JAK inhibition of intestinal tissues may ultimately reduce systemic effects, including the risk of herpes zoster.
Clara Abraham, MD, professor of medicine, section of digestive diseases, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).
Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.
Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.
“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.
Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).
“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.
Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.
“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”
The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.
“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.
For patients with inflammatory bowel disease or other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors appear generally safe, though they may increase the risk of herpes zoster infection, according to a large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data from more than 66,000 patients revealed no significant links between JAK inhibitors and risks of serious infections, malignancy, or major adverse cardiovascular events, reported lead author Pablo Olivera, MD, of Centro de Educación Médica e Investigación Clínica (CEMIC) in Buenos Aires and colleagues.
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review evaluating the risk profile of JAK inhibitors in a wide spectrum of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” they wrote in Gastroenterology.
The investigators drew studies from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from 1990 to 2019 and from conference databases from 2012 to 2018. Out of 973 studies identified, 82 were included in the final analysis, of which two-thirds were randomized clinical trials. In total, 101,925 subjects were included, of whom a majority had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 86,308), followed by psoriasis (n = 9,311), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 5,987), and ankylosing spondylitis (n = 319).
Meta-analysis of JAK inhibitor usage involved 66,159 patients. Four JAK inhibitors were included: tofacitinib, filgotinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of adverse events and serious adverse events. The investigators also estimated incidence rates of herpes zoster infection, serious infections, mortality, malignancy, and major adverse cardiovascular events. These rates were compared with those of patients who received placebo or an active comparator in clinical trials.
Analysis showed that almost 9 out of 10 patients (87.16%) who were exposed to a JAK inhibitor received tofacitinib. The investigators described high variability in treatment duration and baseline characteristics of participants. Rates of adverse events and serious adverse events also fell across a broad spectrum, from 10% to 82% and from 0% to 29%, respectively.
“Most [adverse events] were mild, and included worsening of the underlying condition, probably showing lack of efficacy,” the investigators wrote.
Rates of mortality and most adverse events were not significantly associated with JAK inhibitor exposure. In contrast, relative risk of herpes zoster infection was 57% higher in patients who received a JAK inhibitor than in those who received a placebo or comparator (RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.37).
“Regarding the risk of herpes zoster with JAK inhibitors, the largest evidence comes from the use of tofacitinib, but it appears to be a class effect, with a clear dose-dependent effect,” the investigators wrote.
Although risks of herpes zoster may be carried across the drug class, they may not be evenly distributed given that a subgroup analysis revealed that some JAK inhibitors may bring higher risks than others; specifically, tofacitinib and baricitinib were associated with higher relative risks of herpes zoster than were upadacitinib and filgotinib.
“Although this is merely a qualitative comparison, this difference could be related to the fact that both filgotinib and upadacitinib are selective JAK1 inhibitors, whereas tofacitinib is a JAK1/JAK3 inhibitor and baricitinib a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor,” the investigators wrote. “Further studies are needed to determine if JAK isoform selectivity affects the risk of herpes zoster.”
The investigators emphasized this need for more research. While the present findings help illuminate the safety profile of JAK inhibitors, they are clouded by various other factors, such as disease-specific considerations, a lack of real-world data, and studies that are likely too short to accurately determine risk of malignancy, the investigators wrote.
“More studies with long follow-up and in the real world setting, in different conditions, will be needed to fully elucidate the safety profile of the different JAK inhibitors,” the investigators concluded.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Takeda, Pfizer, and others.
SOURCE: Olivera P et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.001.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Genome study examines heritability of psoriatic disease subtypes
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
Genetic variation plays a greater role in the phenotype of cutaneous psoriasis, compared with psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis vulgaris, according to a study published in Scientific Reports.
Psoriatic disease is known to have a strong genetic basis, but understanding variations in the heritability of different forms of psoriasis is important for research into new genes, risk factors, and potential treatments, wrote Quan Li, PhD, of the faculty of medicine at Memorial University, St. John’s, Nfld., and coauthors.
“Heritability essentially refers to how much variation in a trait is due to variation in genetic factors,” the authors wrote. “Better approximation of the heritability of PsC [cutaneous psoriasis], PsV [psoriasis vulgaris], and PsA [psoriatic arthritis] will culminate in more efficient genetic profiling of psoriatic disease and facilitate gene identification studies by providing more accurate estimates of sample sizes needed based on the heritability of different subsets of psoriatic disease.”
The analysis used data from a previous genome-wide association study that looked at single nucleotide polymorphisms – a variation in the DNA sequence of a particular gene – in 2,938 people with PsV, 1,155 with PsC, 715 with PsA, and 3,117 unaffected controls.
The authors used two different modeling approaches to estimate the contribution these genetic variations made to each condition. These both revealed that PsC had a greater heritability than both PsV and PsA.
“This is the first study to quantify the additive heritability of three subsets of psoriatic disease that is attributable to common susceptibility [single nucleotide polymorphisms] from large-scale genotyping arrays,” the authors wrote.
The authors wrote that this finding differed from other population-based genetic epidemiologic studies, which had pointed to much greater heritability for PsA than for PsV. However, these earlier results could be attributed to common environmental factors.
Given these heritability estimates previously made for PsA, the authors commented on the surprising absence of PsA-specific genes that reach significance in genome-wide association studies.
“This is partly explained by the much larger number of patients in the PsC or PsV [genome-wide association] studies to date, compared with PsA,” they wrote, also suggesting that this may be because of the greater disease heterogeneity seen with PsA, compared with psoriasis.
“Considerably increasing the number of PsA patients in [genome-wide association] studies will help clarify the heritability estimate question for PsA,” they wrote, but acknowledged that lower heritability or greater environmental influence could also be an explanation for this finding.
The study was supported by the Atlantic Innovation Fund. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Li Q et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61981-5
FROM SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars in Denmark contrasts with U.S. experience
Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.
Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.
To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.
“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.
The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.
A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”
Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.
The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.
Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.
Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.
To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.
“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.
The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.
A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”
Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.
The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.
Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.
Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.
To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.
“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.
The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.
A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”
Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.
The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Psoriasis Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Should Patients Continue Biologics?
AAD-NPF releases first guidelines for nonbiologic treatments of psoriasis
It’s been 11 years since monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.
The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.
“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”
The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.
Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.
Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”
The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.
Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).
The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.
Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.
The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).
Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.
The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.
“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.
Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.
Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.
Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”
Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.
It’s been 11 years since monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.
The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.
“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”
The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.
Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.
Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”
The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.
Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).
The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.
Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.
The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).
Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.
The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.
“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.
Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.
Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.
Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”
Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.
It’s been 11 years since monotherapy and suggest a framework for a number of off-label treatments.
The guidelines, issued jointly with the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF), were published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
“I think we are way behind,” Alan Menter, MD, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the guideline writing committee, said in an interview. “Most other countries update their guidelines every 1 or 2 years; we were 10 years behind.” The guidelines for systemic nonbiologic drugs follow up psoriasis guidelines issued by the AAD and the NPF on pediatric patients issued earlier this year, and on phototherapy, biologic treatments, and management of comorbidities issued last year.
“A lot has happened in the last 10 years,” said cochair Craig Elmets, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “While much of the interest is on biologic agents, nonbiologics are still used quite frequently, and the guidelines for their appropriate use have changed. Use of the guidelines provides people in the health profession with the most up to date evidence-based information so they can give their patients the best care.”
The guidelines acknowledge that the medications it covers are still widely used, either by themselves or in combination with biologic agents; readily available; easy to use; and, in the case of older therapies, relatively cheap.
Methotrexate has been available since the 1970s. Given as an injection or taken orally, the guidelines recommend supplementation with folic acid to counteract methotrexate’s side effects, particularly GI upset. The guidelines note that folic acid is less expensive than folinic acid. Combination therapy with methotrexate and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors is more effective than methotrexate monotherapy, with a similar side effect profile, the guidelines state.
Methotrexate is more widely used outside the United States, “but it is a very good, quick fix and it’s much safer in children and young people than it is in people with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Menter noted. “It’s still the most commonly used drug worldwide because it’s cheap, and you do have to worry about the long-term toxicity which is related the liver issues.”
The guidelines say that subcutaneous administration of methotrexate “may be particularly useful” for patients on higher doses, which when taken orally, are associated with a higher risk of GI effects.
Dr. Menter referred to a 2017 study, which reported 41% of patients treated with subcutaneous methotrexate once a week achieved a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 score of 41% after a year of treatment, compared with 10% of those on placebo (Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389[10068]:528-37).
The guidelines rate strength of recommendation as class A for methotrexate for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, recommend supplementation with folic or folinic acid to counteract GI complications and liver problems, and note that adalimumab and infliximab are more effective than methotrexate for cutaneous psoriasis. Class B recommendations for methotrexate and psoriasis include statements that patients should begin with a test dose, especially if they have impaired kidney function; methotrexate is effective for peripheral, but not axial, psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and TNF inhibitors are more effective than methotrexate for PsA.
Approved by the FDA in 2014 for psoriasis, apremilast, which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, is the newest drug in the recommendations. The guidelines recommend its use for moderate to severe psoriasis in adults, with a class A recommendation. Patients should start on a low dose and then build up to the 30-mg, twice-daily dose over 6 days and should be counseled about the risk of depression before starting treatment. Routine laboratory testing can be considered on an individual basis.
The guidelines also lay out three recommendations (and strength of recommendation) for cyclosporine, a drug that’s been around since the 1990s: for severe, recalcitrant cases (class A); for erythrodermic, general pustular, and palmoplantar psoriasis (class B); and as short-term therapy for psoriasis flare in patients already on another drug (class C).
Acitretin is another longstanding therapy used mostly for palmar-plantar psoriasis, but it can also be used as monotherapy for plaque psoriasis as well as erythrodermic and pustular disease. It can also be used in combination with psoralens with UVA for psoriasis and combined with broadband UVB phototherapy for plaque psoriasis. The acitretin recommendations are class B.
The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib isn’t specifically approved for psoriasis, but it is approved for RA, PsA, and ulcerative colitis. The drug targets the JAK-STAT signaling pathway that causes inflammation. The guidelines state that tofacitinib can be considered for moderate to severe psoriasis, but lists no strength of recommendation. The recommended dose is either 5 or 10 mg orally twice a day, with a caveat that the higher dose carries a higher risk of adverse events. Patients should be evaluated for getting a zoster vaccine before they begin therapy.
“We thought that, because there was probably a small chance that it might get approved for psoriasis, that we would discuss it briefly,” Dr. Menter said of tofacitinib.
Another off-label use the guidelines address is for fumaric and acid esters, also known as fumarates, which are used to in Europe to treat moderate to severe psoriasis. Dimethyl fumarate is approved for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States. The guidelines state that fumarates can be used for psoriasis, but offer no strength of recommendation. Side effects include gastrointestinal disturbance and flushing.
Other treatments that are also addressed in the guidelines include a host of systemic immunosuppressants and antimetabolites: azathioprine, hydroxyurea, leflunomide, mycophenolate mofetil, thioguanine, and tacrolimus, none of which are FDA approved for psoriasis. They’re rarely used for psoriasis, but may have value in selected cases, the guidelines state.
Dr. Menter said that apremilast is the only oral drug in the guidelines, but they are the wave of the future for treating psoriasis. “I think there’s a tremendous potential for new oral drugs – TK2 [thymidine kinase], the JAK inhibitors, and other drugs coming down the pipelines. The majority of patients, if you ask them their preference, would like to take an oral drug rather than an injectable drug. And it would be much easier for dermatologists, they wouldn’t have to train patients on how to do the injections.”
Dr. Menter and Dr. Elmets disclosed financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies. Other authors/work group members also had disclosures related to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and several had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Menter A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Feb 28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.044.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
HLA-B27 status predicts radiographic phenotype of axSpA
The presence of HLA-B27 may predict the radiographic phenotype of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to recent research.
The findings suggest HLA-B27-positive patients have worse radiographic damage, more typical marginal syndesmophytes, and a greater number of bilateral fused sacroiliac joints in the spine, reported Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues. Their report was published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“In order to achieve phenotypic diversity, we studied patients with PsA [psoriatic arthritis] and axial involvement (a group of patients recognized to have less frequent carriage of HLA-B27), and AS [ankylosing spondylitis],” they wrote.
The researchers conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional cohort study involving 198 patients with AS and 244 with PsA. Various clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were collected from databases in Ireland, Spain, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Italy.
HLA-B27-positive patients were older (mean 49.1 years vs. 53.8 years), were more often male (73% vs. 59%), and had longer disease duration (mean 13.6 years vs. 11.0 years).
The team compared HLA-B27 carriers and noncarriers on syndesmophyte morphology, the symmetry of the sacroiliac joints and syndesmophytes, in addition to radiographic damage, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS) and PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI).
After analysis, the researchers found that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with higher median mSASSS (6 vs. 2; P = .04) and PASRI scores (12 vs. 6; P less than .0001), marginal syndesmophytes (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.36), and syndesmophyte symmetry (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.38-6.61).
“[Our] study [showed] no difference in sacroiliac symmetry, and no difference in nonmarginal syndesmophytes, according to HLA-B27 status,” they reported.
In addition, they reported that male sex (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.66) and age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were positive predictors of marginal syndesmophytes.
In contrast, only male sex (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.46-4.64) and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07) predicted the presence of nonmarginal syndesmophytes.
The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the absence of disease-group matching and lack of independent central reading of radiographs.
“This analysis suggests less difference in radiographic phenotype between AS and axial PsA than previously found but emphasizes the importance of HLA-B27 status in severity and the phenotypic expression of disease radiographically,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.24174.
The presence of HLA-B27 may predict the radiographic phenotype of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to recent research.
The findings suggest HLA-B27-positive patients have worse radiographic damage, more typical marginal syndesmophytes, and a greater number of bilateral fused sacroiliac joints in the spine, reported Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues. Their report was published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“In order to achieve phenotypic diversity, we studied patients with PsA [psoriatic arthritis] and axial involvement (a group of patients recognized to have less frequent carriage of HLA-B27), and AS [ankylosing spondylitis],” they wrote.
The researchers conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional cohort study involving 198 patients with AS and 244 with PsA. Various clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were collected from databases in Ireland, Spain, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Italy.
HLA-B27-positive patients were older (mean 49.1 years vs. 53.8 years), were more often male (73% vs. 59%), and had longer disease duration (mean 13.6 years vs. 11.0 years).
The team compared HLA-B27 carriers and noncarriers on syndesmophyte morphology, the symmetry of the sacroiliac joints and syndesmophytes, in addition to radiographic damage, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS) and PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI).
After analysis, the researchers found that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with higher median mSASSS (6 vs. 2; P = .04) and PASRI scores (12 vs. 6; P less than .0001), marginal syndesmophytes (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.36), and syndesmophyte symmetry (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.38-6.61).
“[Our] study [showed] no difference in sacroiliac symmetry, and no difference in nonmarginal syndesmophytes, according to HLA-B27 status,” they reported.
In addition, they reported that male sex (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.66) and age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were positive predictors of marginal syndesmophytes.
In contrast, only male sex (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.46-4.64) and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07) predicted the presence of nonmarginal syndesmophytes.
The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the absence of disease-group matching and lack of independent central reading of radiographs.
“This analysis suggests less difference in radiographic phenotype between AS and axial PsA than previously found but emphasizes the importance of HLA-B27 status in severity and the phenotypic expression of disease radiographically,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.24174.
The presence of HLA-B27 may predict the radiographic phenotype of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to recent research.
The findings suggest HLA-B27-positive patients have worse radiographic damage, more typical marginal syndesmophytes, and a greater number of bilateral fused sacroiliac joints in the spine, reported Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues. Their report was published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“In order to achieve phenotypic diversity, we studied patients with PsA [psoriatic arthritis] and axial involvement (a group of patients recognized to have less frequent carriage of HLA-B27), and AS [ankylosing spondylitis],” they wrote.
The researchers conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional cohort study involving 198 patients with AS and 244 with PsA. Various clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were collected from databases in Ireland, Spain, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Italy.
HLA-B27-positive patients were older (mean 49.1 years vs. 53.8 years), were more often male (73% vs. 59%), and had longer disease duration (mean 13.6 years vs. 11.0 years).
The team compared HLA-B27 carriers and noncarriers on syndesmophyte morphology, the symmetry of the sacroiliac joints and syndesmophytes, in addition to radiographic damage, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS) and PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI).
After analysis, the researchers found that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with higher median mSASSS (6 vs. 2; P = .04) and PASRI scores (12 vs. 6; P less than .0001), marginal syndesmophytes (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.36), and syndesmophyte symmetry (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.38-6.61).
“[Our] study [showed] no difference in sacroiliac symmetry, and no difference in nonmarginal syndesmophytes, according to HLA-B27 status,” they reported.
In addition, they reported that male sex (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.66) and age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were positive predictors of marginal syndesmophytes.
In contrast, only male sex (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.46-4.64) and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07) predicted the presence of nonmarginal syndesmophytes.
The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the absence of disease-group matching and lack of independent central reading of radiographs.
“This analysis suggests less difference in radiographic phenotype between AS and axial PsA than previously found but emphasizes the importance of HLA-B27 status in severity and the phenotypic expression of disease radiographically,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.24174.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Meta-analysis highlights safety concerns with interleukin inhibition
MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.
“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.
The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.
Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.
He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”
The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.
“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.
A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.
Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).
MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.
“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.
The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.
Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.
He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”
The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.
“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.
A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.
Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).
MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.
“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.
The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.
Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.
He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”
The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.
“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.
A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.
Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020