User login
Severe COVID-19–related outcomes found worse in men with RA
A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.
“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.
Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.
Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.
A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).
Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).
Sex hormones factor into risk
The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.
Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.
Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.
By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.
Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities
The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.
Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.
Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.
In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.
“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.
Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.
Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.
A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).
Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).
Sex hormones factor into risk
The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.
Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.
Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.
By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.
Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities
The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.
Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.
Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.
In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.
“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.
Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.
Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.
Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.
Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.
A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).
Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).
Sex hormones factor into risk
The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.
Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.
Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.
By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.
Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities
The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.
Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.
Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.
In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.
The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET SUMMIT ON SEX AND GENDER IN RHEUMATOLOGY
Commentary: New Results With DMARD in RA, October 2022
Interleukin (IL)–6 is known to be of great importance in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) owing to its role in the inflammatory response. Current IL-6-directed therapies in RA, namely sarilumab and tocilizumab, target the receptor. In a double-blind randomized controlled trial with both placebo and active comparators, Smolen and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of olokizumab, which directly binds and inhibits the activity of IL-6, in combination with methotrexate, in the treatment of people with RA. Patients were treated with methotrexate alone or in combination with adalimumab or olokizumab, and clinical outcomes were evaluated after 12 weeks, a relatively short time frame. Olokizumab was noninferior to adalimumab in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 response, with similar rates of serious adverse events, the most common of which was infection. Though this study included patients from across the globe, the percentage of Black and Asian patients was relatively low and thus may affect the generalizability of this study to a US population; the numbers of patients in each group was also relatively small. These results certainly warrant larger-scale and longer studies to evaluate olokizumab's efficacy.
For those patients with RA who achieve sustained disease remission, the question of medication tapering has been raised as a possible strategy for minimizing risks for therapy. Using insurance database information, Birkner and colleagues performed a prospective cohort study of over 400 patients in Germany. Using shared decision-making between patients and their rheumatologists, two groups of patients were followed: 237 people who elected to remain on therapy and 200 who decided to taper medication. Of note, similar proportions of patients in both groups were taking conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy, but more patients in the tapering group were taking a combination therapy with both. Flares and loss of remission were more common in the continuation group, a difference that did not persist after adjusting for patient risk characteristics. Overall, results from this "real-world" study were consistent with prior studies and support the possibility of tapering with flare in a subset of patients. Although the authors address the potential for selection bias in terms of patients "assigned" to each group, this can also be viewed as part of the shared decision-making in determining the appropriateness of tapering therapy in individual patients.
Because people receiving rituximab have experienced more severe COVID-19, studies aimed at enhancing the protection of these patients are of current interest. Of note, in a follow-up to a prior observational study by van der Togt and colleagues on the response to COVID-19 vaccines in people with RA being treated with rituximab, they looked at responses to the third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Only about 20% of patients treated with rituximab developed a humoral response to a third vaccine dose, as defined by immunoglobulins (Ig; total, IgG, and IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. Patients treated with 200 mg rituximab had a higher response rate than did those treated with 500 mg or 1000 mg, though this difference was not statistically significant. The study lacked a control arm of people being treated with other DMARD and also did not measure B-cell counts, COVID-19, or outcomes. Reassuringly, those patients who did have a positive humoral response to the first two vaccine doses tended to maintain a humoral response to the third, regardless of rituximab dose or timing.
Interleukin (IL)–6 is known to be of great importance in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) owing to its role in the inflammatory response. Current IL-6-directed therapies in RA, namely sarilumab and tocilizumab, target the receptor. In a double-blind randomized controlled trial with both placebo and active comparators, Smolen and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of olokizumab, which directly binds and inhibits the activity of IL-6, in combination with methotrexate, in the treatment of people with RA. Patients were treated with methotrexate alone or in combination with adalimumab or olokizumab, and clinical outcomes were evaluated after 12 weeks, a relatively short time frame. Olokizumab was noninferior to adalimumab in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 response, with similar rates of serious adverse events, the most common of which was infection. Though this study included patients from across the globe, the percentage of Black and Asian patients was relatively low and thus may affect the generalizability of this study to a US population; the numbers of patients in each group was also relatively small. These results certainly warrant larger-scale and longer studies to evaluate olokizumab's efficacy.
For those patients with RA who achieve sustained disease remission, the question of medication tapering has been raised as a possible strategy for minimizing risks for therapy. Using insurance database information, Birkner and colleagues performed a prospective cohort study of over 400 patients in Germany. Using shared decision-making between patients and their rheumatologists, two groups of patients were followed: 237 people who elected to remain on therapy and 200 who decided to taper medication. Of note, similar proportions of patients in both groups were taking conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy, but more patients in the tapering group were taking a combination therapy with both. Flares and loss of remission were more common in the continuation group, a difference that did not persist after adjusting for patient risk characteristics. Overall, results from this "real-world" study were consistent with prior studies and support the possibility of tapering with flare in a subset of patients. Although the authors address the potential for selection bias in terms of patients "assigned" to each group, this can also be viewed as part of the shared decision-making in determining the appropriateness of tapering therapy in individual patients.
Because people receiving rituximab have experienced more severe COVID-19, studies aimed at enhancing the protection of these patients are of current interest. Of note, in a follow-up to a prior observational study by van der Togt and colleagues on the response to COVID-19 vaccines in people with RA being treated with rituximab, they looked at responses to the third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Only about 20% of patients treated with rituximab developed a humoral response to a third vaccine dose, as defined by immunoglobulins (Ig; total, IgG, and IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. Patients treated with 200 mg rituximab had a higher response rate than did those treated with 500 mg or 1000 mg, though this difference was not statistically significant. The study lacked a control arm of people being treated with other DMARD and also did not measure B-cell counts, COVID-19, or outcomes. Reassuringly, those patients who did have a positive humoral response to the first two vaccine doses tended to maintain a humoral response to the third, regardless of rituximab dose or timing.
Interleukin (IL)–6 is known to be of great importance in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) owing to its role in the inflammatory response. Current IL-6-directed therapies in RA, namely sarilumab and tocilizumab, target the receptor. In a double-blind randomized controlled trial with both placebo and active comparators, Smolen and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of olokizumab, which directly binds and inhibits the activity of IL-6, in combination with methotrexate, in the treatment of people with RA. Patients were treated with methotrexate alone or in combination with adalimumab or olokizumab, and clinical outcomes were evaluated after 12 weeks, a relatively short time frame. Olokizumab was noninferior to adalimumab in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 response, with similar rates of serious adverse events, the most common of which was infection. Though this study included patients from across the globe, the percentage of Black and Asian patients was relatively low and thus may affect the generalizability of this study to a US population; the numbers of patients in each group was also relatively small. These results certainly warrant larger-scale and longer studies to evaluate olokizumab's efficacy.
For those patients with RA who achieve sustained disease remission, the question of medication tapering has been raised as a possible strategy for minimizing risks for therapy. Using insurance database information, Birkner and colleagues performed a prospective cohort study of over 400 patients in Germany. Using shared decision-making between patients and their rheumatologists, two groups of patients were followed: 237 people who elected to remain on therapy and 200 who decided to taper medication. Of note, similar proportions of patients in both groups were taking conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) monotherapy, but more patients in the tapering group were taking a combination therapy with both. Flares and loss of remission were more common in the continuation group, a difference that did not persist after adjusting for patient risk characteristics. Overall, results from this "real-world" study were consistent with prior studies and support the possibility of tapering with flare in a subset of patients. Although the authors address the potential for selection bias in terms of patients "assigned" to each group, this can also be viewed as part of the shared decision-making in determining the appropriateness of tapering therapy in individual patients.
Because people receiving rituximab have experienced more severe COVID-19, studies aimed at enhancing the protection of these patients are of current interest. Of note, in a follow-up to a prior observational study by van der Togt and colleagues on the response to COVID-19 vaccines in people with RA being treated with rituximab, they looked at responses to the third (booster) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Only about 20% of patients treated with rituximab developed a humoral response to a third vaccine dose, as defined by immunoglobulins (Ig; total, IgG, and IgM) against SARS-CoV-2. Patients treated with 200 mg rituximab had a higher response rate than did those treated with 500 mg or 1000 mg, though this difference was not statistically significant. The study lacked a control arm of people being treated with other DMARD and also did not measure B-cell counts, COVID-19, or outcomes. Reassuringly, those patients who did have a positive humoral response to the first two vaccine doses tended to maintain a humoral response to the third, regardless of rituximab dose or timing.
Trial shows olokizumab’s effect in nonresponders to TNF inhibitors in RA
Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with olokizumab combined with methotrexate led to significantly more patients with improved signs and symptoms than did methotrexate plus placebo in circumstances where previous treatment with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors yielded inadequate responses, results from a phase 3 randomized trial show.
At the week 12 primary endpoint, 40.6% of patients receiving placebo had at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 20), compared with 60.9% of patients receiving olokizumab 64 mg every 2 weeks and 59.6% of patients receiving olokizumab 64 mg every 4 weeks (P <.01 for both comparisons), senior author Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and colleagues reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Dr. Fleischmann said that given the existing literature on the investigational interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor olokizumab shows that it is superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab (Humira) in patients who have an inadequate response to methotrexate and that it was superior to methotrexate alone for patients who have failed one or more TNF inhibitors in this current trial, the most likely use of olokizumab in clinical practice if it is approved is for those with inadequate responses to TNF inhibitors.
“If olokizumab is approved in the U.S., it is a reasonable choice when considering an inhibitor of IL-6. As it does affect IL-6 directly, rather than the receptor, much less protein needs to be administered with a convenient dosing interval of either every 2 or 4 weeks subcutaneously,” Dr. Fleischmann said in an interview.
The 24-week, double-blind, multicenter study, dubbed Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO 3), involved 161 patients receiving 64 mg of olokizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks, 138 receiving 64 mg of olokizumab subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, and 69 receiving placebo. At week 16, the researchers randomized participants in the placebo group to receive either olokizumab regimen.
All patients received methotrexate, and NSAIDs and glucocorticoids (< 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) were allowed in stable doses. Mean age was about 53 years across all three arms, and females accounted for the majority for each arm.
Significantly more patients in both olokizumab arms achieved the main secondary endpoint of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein less than 3.2 at week 12, compared with placebo.
Notably, patients who moved from placebo at week 16 experienced improvement that was sustained over the remaining 8 weeks.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events with olokizumab occurred in 3.2% receiving the drug every 4 weeks and in 7% receiving it every 2 weeks but in none who received placebo.
The study’s limitations included the high placebo response rate, the short timeframe for placebo, and its fairly small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the results, the authors noted.
Expert commentary
There are currently two biologics on the market that inhibit the IL-6 receptor, tocilizumab (Actemra), and sarilumab (Kevzara), but olokizumab is unique in that “it does not block the receptor. It binds directly to the cytokine,” noted Larry Moreland, MD, a professor of medicine and orthopedics in the division of rheumatology at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.
Tocilizumab and sarilumab had a similar clinical trial portfolio when they were studied in people who failed anti-TNF therapy, so this is the standard study a company would do prior to seeking approval, Dr. Moreland said.
“The fact that there is another IL-6 blocker that is showing promise means that there are more opportunities for researchers and clinicians to use these agents not only for rheumatoid arthritis but also hopefully study them in other diseases,” he said.
The CREDO 3 trial was sponsored by R-Pharm. Some of the authors are employees of R-Pharm. Dr. Fleischmann and some of his coauthors reported financial ties to R-Pharm and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Moreland reported having no relevant competing interests.
Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with olokizumab combined with methotrexate led to significantly more patients with improved signs and symptoms than did methotrexate plus placebo in circumstances where previous treatment with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors yielded inadequate responses, results from a phase 3 randomized trial show.
At the week 12 primary endpoint, 40.6% of patients receiving placebo had at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 20), compared with 60.9% of patients receiving olokizumab 64 mg every 2 weeks and 59.6% of patients receiving olokizumab 64 mg every 4 weeks (P <.01 for both comparisons), senior author Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and colleagues reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Dr. Fleischmann said that given the existing literature on the investigational interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor olokizumab shows that it is superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab (Humira) in patients who have an inadequate response to methotrexate and that it was superior to methotrexate alone for patients who have failed one or more TNF inhibitors in this current trial, the most likely use of olokizumab in clinical practice if it is approved is for those with inadequate responses to TNF inhibitors.
“If olokizumab is approved in the U.S., it is a reasonable choice when considering an inhibitor of IL-6. As it does affect IL-6 directly, rather than the receptor, much less protein needs to be administered with a convenient dosing interval of either every 2 or 4 weeks subcutaneously,” Dr. Fleischmann said in an interview.
The 24-week, double-blind, multicenter study, dubbed Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO 3), involved 161 patients receiving 64 mg of olokizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks, 138 receiving 64 mg of olokizumab subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, and 69 receiving placebo. At week 16, the researchers randomized participants in the placebo group to receive either olokizumab regimen.
All patients received methotrexate, and NSAIDs and glucocorticoids (< 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) were allowed in stable doses. Mean age was about 53 years across all three arms, and females accounted for the majority for each arm.
Significantly more patients in both olokizumab arms achieved the main secondary endpoint of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein less than 3.2 at week 12, compared with placebo.
Notably, patients who moved from placebo at week 16 experienced improvement that was sustained over the remaining 8 weeks.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events with olokizumab occurred in 3.2% receiving the drug every 4 weeks and in 7% receiving it every 2 weeks but in none who received placebo.
The study’s limitations included the high placebo response rate, the short timeframe for placebo, and its fairly small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the results, the authors noted.
Expert commentary
There are currently two biologics on the market that inhibit the IL-6 receptor, tocilizumab (Actemra), and sarilumab (Kevzara), but olokizumab is unique in that “it does not block the receptor. It binds directly to the cytokine,” noted Larry Moreland, MD, a professor of medicine and orthopedics in the division of rheumatology at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.
Tocilizumab and sarilumab had a similar clinical trial portfolio when they were studied in people who failed anti-TNF therapy, so this is the standard study a company would do prior to seeking approval, Dr. Moreland said.
“The fact that there is another IL-6 blocker that is showing promise means that there are more opportunities for researchers and clinicians to use these agents not only for rheumatoid arthritis but also hopefully study them in other diseases,” he said.
The CREDO 3 trial was sponsored by R-Pharm. Some of the authors are employees of R-Pharm. Dr. Fleischmann and some of his coauthors reported financial ties to R-Pharm and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Moreland reported having no relevant competing interests.
Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with olokizumab combined with methotrexate led to significantly more patients with improved signs and symptoms than did methotrexate plus placebo in circumstances where previous treatment with one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors yielded inadequate responses, results from a phase 3 randomized trial show.
At the week 12 primary endpoint, 40.6% of patients receiving placebo had at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 20), compared with 60.9% of patients receiving olokizumab 64 mg every 2 weeks and 59.6% of patients receiving olokizumab 64 mg every 4 weeks (P <.01 for both comparisons), senior author Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and colleagues reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Dr. Fleischmann said that given the existing literature on the investigational interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor olokizumab shows that it is superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab (Humira) in patients who have an inadequate response to methotrexate and that it was superior to methotrexate alone for patients who have failed one or more TNF inhibitors in this current trial, the most likely use of olokizumab in clinical practice if it is approved is for those with inadequate responses to TNF inhibitors.
“If olokizumab is approved in the U.S., it is a reasonable choice when considering an inhibitor of IL-6. As it does affect IL-6 directly, rather than the receptor, much less protein needs to be administered with a convenient dosing interval of either every 2 or 4 weeks subcutaneously,” Dr. Fleischmann said in an interview.
The 24-week, double-blind, multicenter study, dubbed Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO 3), involved 161 patients receiving 64 mg of olokizumab subcutaneously every 4 weeks, 138 receiving 64 mg of olokizumab subcutaneously once every 2 weeks, and 69 receiving placebo. At week 16, the researchers randomized participants in the placebo group to receive either olokizumab regimen.
All patients received methotrexate, and NSAIDs and glucocorticoids (< 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) were allowed in stable doses. Mean age was about 53 years across all three arms, and females accounted for the majority for each arm.
Significantly more patients in both olokizumab arms achieved the main secondary endpoint of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein less than 3.2 at week 12, compared with placebo.
Notably, patients who moved from placebo at week 16 experienced improvement that was sustained over the remaining 8 weeks.
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events with olokizumab occurred in 3.2% receiving the drug every 4 weeks and in 7% receiving it every 2 weeks but in none who received placebo.
The study’s limitations included the high placebo response rate, the short timeframe for placebo, and its fairly small sample size, which limits the generalizability of the results, the authors noted.
Expert commentary
There are currently two biologics on the market that inhibit the IL-6 receptor, tocilizumab (Actemra), and sarilumab (Kevzara), but olokizumab is unique in that “it does not block the receptor. It binds directly to the cytokine,” noted Larry Moreland, MD, a professor of medicine and orthopedics in the division of rheumatology at the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.
Tocilizumab and sarilumab had a similar clinical trial portfolio when they were studied in people who failed anti-TNF therapy, so this is the standard study a company would do prior to seeking approval, Dr. Moreland said.
“The fact that there is another IL-6 blocker that is showing promise means that there are more opportunities for researchers and clinicians to use these agents not only for rheumatoid arthritis but also hopefully study them in other diseases,” he said.
The CREDO 3 trial was sponsored by R-Pharm. Some of the authors are employees of R-Pharm. Dr. Fleischmann and some of his coauthors reported financial ties to R-Pharm and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Moreland reported having no relevant competing interests.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Tapering methotrexate and sustaining remission in RA: What are the chances?
Key clinical point: Methotrexate dosage may be tapered from targeted therapy in patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but with a low risk for not being able to sustain remission for up to 18 months.
Major finding: The ability to sustain remission for up to 18 months was 10% lower in patients with RA who tapered vs did not taper methotrexate from targeted therapy (risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97).
Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies including 2000 patients with early or established RA who received any targeted therapy in combination with methotrexate and eventually tapered their methotrexate dosage.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. Some authors reported receiving grants, honoraria or consulting fees, or owning stocks in various sources.
Source: Meng CF et al. Can patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis taper methotrexate from targeted therapy and sustain remission? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Aug 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220152
Key clinical point: Methotrexate dosage may be tapered from targeted therapy in patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but with a low risk for not being able to sustain remission for up to 18 months.
Major finding: The ability to sustain remission for up to 18 months was 10% lower in patients with RA who tapered vs did not taper methotrexate from targeted therapy (risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97).
Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies including 2000 patients with early or established RA who received any targeted therapy in combination with methotrexate and eventually tapered their methotrexate dosage.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. Some authors reported receiving grants, honoraria or consulting fees, or owning stocks in various sources.
Source: Meng CF et al. Can patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis taper methotrexate from targeted therapy and sustain remission? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Aug 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220152
Key clinical point: Methotrexate dosage may be tapered from targeted therapy in patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but with a low risk for not being able to sustain remission for up to 18 months.
Major finding: The ability to sustain remission for up to 18 months was 10% lower in patients with RA who tapered vs did not taper methotrexate from targeted therapy (risk ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.84-0.97).
Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies including 2000 patients with early or established RA who received any targeted therapy in combination with methotrexate and eventually tapered their methotrexate dosage.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. Some authors reported receiving grants, honoraria or consulting fees, or owning stocks in various sources.
Source: Meng CF et al. Can patients with controlled rheumatoid arthritis taper methotrexate from targeted therapy and sustain remission? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Rheumatol. 2022 (Aug 15). Doi: 10.3899/jrheum.220152
Comparative analysis of efficacies of different biological therapies for RA in the real world
Key clinical point: Real-world analysis demonstrated a higher efficacy of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (non-TNFi) vs TNFi and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with a higher efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab vs infliximab within TNFi.
Major finding: Efficacies of TNFi vs non-TNFi drugs (risk ratio [RR] 0.88; P < .01) and bDMARD vs JAKi (RR 0.86; P < .01) were lower. Among TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were 19.0% more effective than infliximab (RR 1.19; P < .01).
Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 population-based, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies including 182,098 patients with RA.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health, Brazil, and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: de Castro CT et al. Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:927179 (Aug 11). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927179
Key clinical point: Real-world analysis demonstrated a higher efficacy of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (non-TNFi) vs TNFi and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with a higher efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab vs infliximab within TNFi.
Major finding: Efficacies of TNFi vs non-TNFi drugs (risk ratio [RR] 0.88; P < .01) and bDMARD vs JAKi (RR 0.86; P < .01) were lower. Among TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were 19.0% more effective than infliximab (RR 1.19; P < .01).
Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 population-based, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies including 182,098 patients with RA.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health, Brazil, and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: de Castro CT et al. Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:927179 (Aug 11). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927179
Key clinical point: Real-world analysis demonstrated a higher efficacy of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (non-TNFi) vs TNFi and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), along with a higher efficacy of adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab vs infliximab within TNFi.
Major finding: Efficacies of TNFi vs non-TNFi drugs (risk ratio [RR] 0.88; P < .01) and bDMARD vs JAKi (RR 0.86; P < .01) were lower. Among TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were 19.0% more effective than infliximab (RR 1.19; P < .01).
Study details: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 population-based, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies including 182,098 patients with RA.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Secretariat of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Strategic Inputs of the Ministry of Health, Brazil, and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: de Castro CT et al. Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:927179 (Aug 11). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.927179
Lower risk for dementia among RA patients receiving b/tsDMARD vs csDMARD
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) were at a reduced risk for incident dementia compared with those who received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) alone.
Major finding: Compared with only csDMARD use, the use of b/tsDMARD was associated with a 19% lower risk for incident dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.87), with findings being similar for all b/tsDMARD categories: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; aHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARD (aHR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90).
Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 141,326 patients aged ≥40 years with RA who received b/tsDMARD with or without csDMARD or csDMARD only.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a BIGDATA core grant from the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving research support, grants, or consulting fees from various sources.
Source: Sattui SE et al. Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152083
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) were at a reduced risk for incident dementia compared with those who received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) alone.
Major finding: Compared with only csDMARD use, the use of b/tsDMARD was associated with a 19% lower risk for incident dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.87), with findings being similar for all b/tsDMARD categories: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; aHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARD (aHR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90).
Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 141,326 patients aged ≥40 years with RA who received b/tsDMARD with or without csDMARD or csDMARD only.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a BIGDATA core grant from the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving research support, grants, or consulting fees from various sources.
Source: Sattui SE et al. Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152083
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARD) were at a reduced risk for incident dementia compared with those who received conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) alone.
Major finding: Compared with only csDMARD use, the use of b/tsDMARD was associated with a 19% lower risk for incident dementia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.81; 95% CI 0.76-0.87), with findings being similar for all b/tsDMARD categories: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; aHR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi (aHR 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARD (aHR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.90).
Study details: This was a retrospective cohort study including 141,326 patients aged ≥40 years with RA who received b/tsDMARD with or without csDMARD or csDMARD only.
Disclosures: This study was supported by a BIGDATA core grant from the US National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving research support, grants, or consulting fees from various sources.
Source: Sattui SE et al. Incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and association with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs - Analysis of a national claims database. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 (Aug 17). Doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2022.152083
Safety and efficacy of iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate in RA
Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate showed clear benefits over methotrexate in improving disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with a comparable safety profile.
Major finding: Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy and iguratimod+methotrexate therapy were associated with more effective improvements in the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; P = .004; and RR 1.24; P < .00001, respectively) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mean difference [MD] −0.15; P = .01; and MD −1.43; P < .00001, respectively) with a similar incidence of adverse events.
Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials including 4302 patients with RA who received iguratimod alone, iguratimod with methotrexate, methotrexate alone, or methotrexate with leflunomide or hydroxychloroquine or tripterygium glycosides.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Youth Science Foundation of China and Research Fund of Hunan Province Education Department. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Ouyang D et al. Effectiveness and safety of iguratimod monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in treating rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:911810 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.911810
Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate showed clear benefits over methotrexate in improving disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with a comparable safety profile.
Major finding: Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy and iguratimod+methotrexate therapy were associated with more effective improvements in the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; P = .004; and RR 1.24; P < .00001, respectively) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mean difference [MD] −0.15; P = .01; and MD −1.43; P < .00001, respectively) with a similar incidence of adverse events.
Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials including 4302 patients with RA who received iguratimod alone, iguratimod with methotrexate, methotrexate alone, or methotrexate with leflunomide or hydroxychloroquine or tripterygium glycosides.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Youth Science Foundation of China and Research Fund of Hunan Province Education Department. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Ouyang D et al. Effectiveness and safety of iguratimod monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in treating rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:911810 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.911810
Key clinical point: Iguratimod as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate showed clear benefits over methotrexate in improving disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) along with a comparable safety profile.
Major finding: Compared with methotrexate monotherapy, iguratimod monotherapy and iguratimod+methotrexate therapy were associated with more effective improvements in the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; P = .004; and RR 1.24; P < .00001, respectively) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mean difference [MD] −0.15; P = .01; and MD −1.43; P < .00001, respectively) with a similar incidence of adverse events.
Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 38 randomized controlled trials including 4302 patients with RA who received iguratimod alone, iguratimod with methotrexate, methotrexate alone, or methotrexate with leflunomide or hydroxychloroquine or tripterygium glycosides.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Youth Science Foundation of China and Research Fund of Hunan Province Education Department. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Ouyang D et al. Effectiveness and safety of iguratimod monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in treating rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:911810 (Aug 5). Doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.911810
Real-world evidence on individual tapering of DMARD in patients with RA
Key clinical point: Individual tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) might be feasible in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission for more than 6 months.
Major finding: The risks for flare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.30) and loss of remission (aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.49) were not significantly different among patients who tapered vs continued DMARD. The clinical disease activity index showed a minor and nonsignificant increase at 12 months in patients who tapered vs continued DMARD (1.80 vs 0.91 units; P = .076).
Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a prospective cohort of 437 patients with RA in sustained remission for ≥6 months who either tapered or continued DMARD.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany. All authors reported receiving grants from the Federal Joint Committee. E Edelmann reported receiving personal fees from various sources. F Verheyen contributed as an employee of Techniker Krankenkasse.
Source: Birkner B et al. Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 18). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac472
Key clinical point: Individual tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) might be feasible in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission for more than 6 months.
Major finding: The risks for flare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.30) and loss of remission (aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.49) were not significantly different among patients who tapered vs continued DMARD. The clinical disease activity index showed a minor and nonsignificant increase at 12 months in patients who tapered vs continued DMARD (1.80 vs 0.91 units; P = .076).
Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a prospective cohort of 437 patients with RA in sustained remission for ≥6 months who either tapered or continued DMARD.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany. All authors reported receiving grants from the Federal Joint Committee. E Edelmann reported receiving personal fees from various sources. F Verheyen contributed as an employee of Techniker Krankenkasse.
Source: Birkner B et al. Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 18). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac472
Key clinical point: Individual tapering of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) might be feasible in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in sustained remission for more than 6 months.
Major finding: The risks for flare (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.59-1.30) and loss of remission (aHR 1.04; 95% CI 0.73-1.49) were not significantly different among patients who tapered vs continued DMARD. The clinical disease activity index showed a minor and nonsignificant increase at 12 months in patients who tapered vs continued DMARD (1.80 vs 0.91 units; P = .076).
Study details: Findings are from an analysis of a prospective cohort of 437 patients with RA in sustained remission for ≥6 months who either tapered or continued DMARD.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany. All authors reported receiving grants from the Federal Joint Committee. E Edelmann reported receiving personal fees from various sources. F Verheyen contributed as an employee of Techniker Krankenkasse.
Source: Birkner B et al. Patient-individual tapering of DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-world setting. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 18). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac472
Faster treatment response with initial upadacitinib vs adalimumab in RA
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (methotrexate-IR) who initiated upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent a longer time in improved disease states and reported faster achievement of treatment targets.
Major finding: Patients initially receiving upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent 19% vs 14% of the time over 48 weeks in clinical disease activity index remission (nominal P = .012) and achieved the 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein of <2.6/≤3.2 approximately 6-8 weeks (median time) earlier.
Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis including patients with RA and methotrexate-IR from the phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE trial who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (n = 651) or adalimumab (n = 327) with background methotrexate.
Disclosures: The trial was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of and may own stocks or options in AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.
Source: Mysler E et al. Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 26). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac477
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (methotrexate-IR) who initiated upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent a longer time in improved disease states and reported faster achievement of treatment targets.
Major finding: Patients initially receiving upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent 19% vs 14% of the time over 48 weeks in clinical disease activity index remission (nominal P = .012) and achieved the 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein of <2.6/≤3.2 approximately 6-8 weeks (median time) earlier.
Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis including patients with RA and methotrexate-IR from the phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE trial who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (n = 651) or adalimumab (n = 327) with background methotrexate.
Disclosures: The trial was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of and may own stocks or options in AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.
Source: Mysler E et al. Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 26). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac477
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (methotrexate-IR) who initiated upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent a longer time in improved disease states and reported faster achievement of treatment targets.
Major finding: Patients initially receiving upadacitinib vs adalimumab spent 19% vs 14% of the time over 48 weeks in clinical disease activity index remission (nominal P = .012) and achieved the 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein of <2.6/≤3.2 approximately 6-8 weeks (median time) earlier.
Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis including patients with RA and methotrexate-IR from the phase 3 SELECT-COMPARE trial who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib (n = 651) or adalimumab (n = 327) with background methotrexate.
Disclosures: The trial was funded by AbbVie, Inc. Five authors declared being employees of and may own stocks or options in AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including AbbVie.
Source: Mysler E et al. Impact of initial therapy with upadacitinib or adalimumab on achievement of 48-week treatment goals in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Aug 26). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac477
Risk factors for mortality in patients with RA-associated interstitial lung disease
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) were at an increased risk for mortality, with age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus with end-organ damage (DM-EOD), and corticosteroid dose being the major risk factors.
Major finding: Risk for mortality was higher in patients with RA-ILD vs RA without ILD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.38; 95% CI 2.03-9.43). Age at ILD diagnosis (aHR 1.05; P < .001), comorbidities, such as COPD (aHR 2.12; P = .005) and DM-EOD (aHR 33.85; P = .002), and average daily prednisolone dose (aHR 1.09; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk for mortality in patients with RA-ILD.
Study details: Findings are from a population-based cohort study including patients with RA-ILD (n = 214) and RA without ILD (n = 30,882) who were propensity-matched (1:1) for selected comorbidities.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Ng K-H et al. Analysis of risk factors of mortality in rheumatoid arthritis patients with interstitial lung disease: A nationwide, population-based cohort study in Taiwan. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002343 (Aug 22). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002343
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) were at an increased risk for mortality, with age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus with end-organ damage (DM-EOD), and corticosteroid dose being the major risk factors.
Major finding: Risk for mortality was higher in patients with RA-ILD vs RA without ILD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.38; 95% CI 2.03-9.43). Age at ILD diagnosis (aHR 1.05; P < .001), comorbidities, such as COPD (aHR 2.12; P = .005) and DM-EOD (aHR 33.85; P = .002), and average daily prednisolone dose (aHR 1.09; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk for mortality in patients with RA-ILD.
Study details: Findings are from a population-based cohort study including patients with RA-ILD (n = 214) and RA without ILD (n = 30,882) who were propensity-matched (1:1) for selected comorbidities.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Ng K-H et al. Analysis of risk factors of mortality in rheumatoid arthritis patients with interstitial lung disease: A nationwide, population-based cohort study in Taiwan. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002343 (Aug 22). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002343
Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) were at an increased risk for mortality, with age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus with end-organ damage (DM-EOD), and corticosteroid dose being the major risk factors.
Major finding: Risk for mortality was higher in patients with RA-ILD vs RA without ILD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.38; 95% CI 2.03-9.43). Age at ILD diagnosis (aHR 1.05; P < .001), comorbidities, such as COPD (aHR 2.12; P = .005) and DM-EOD (aHR 33.85; P = .002), and average daily prednisolone dose (aHR 1.09; P < .001) were associated with an increased risk for mortality in patients with RA-ILD.
Study details: Findings are from a population-based cohort study including patients with RA-ILD (n = 214) and RA without ILD (n = 30,882) who were propensity-matched (1:1) for selected comorbidities.
Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Ng K-H et al. Analysis of risk factors of mortality in rheumatoid arthritis patients with interstitial lung disease: A nationwide, population-based cohort study in Taiwan. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002343 (Aug 22). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002343