Spondyloarthropathies

Peripheral manifestations contribute significantly to disease activity in adults with spondyloarthritis (SpA), point toward a generally worse prognosis, and play a big role in defining the phenotypic clustering of the heterogenous disease, according to findings from what researchers called the first prospective study “to comprehensively describe the prevalence, clinical patterns, and prognostic implications of peripheral manifestations across the entire SpA spectrum.”

The stratification of patients in the study based on the presence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis) led to the identification of an endotype with unfavorable outcomes, which not only has prognostic value but supports the need for an endotype-based treatment approach rather than one centered on C-reactive protein (CRP) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

The findings “advocate strongly for the presence of a distinct SpA endotype, based on potentially different immunopathological mechanisms and characterized by high disease activity at initial presentation with lack of substantial improvement upon follow-up,” first author Ann-Sophie De Craemer, MD, of Ghent, Belgium, and colleagues wrote.

Because the diagnostic and prognostic value of peripheral manifestations has not been well studied in SpA in general and in newly diagnosed patients in particular, Dr. De Craemer and associates decided to analyze their impact in 367 patients in the Be-Giant (BelGian Inflammatory Arthritis and spoNdylitis cohorT) cohort, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort of newly diagnosed patients with SpA in Belgium. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The study population included 257 (70%) patients with axial-predominant SpA (axSpA) as classified by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria and 110 (30%) with peripheral-predominant SpA (pSpA) as defined by ASAS criteria. A total of 52 patients with axSpA had peripheral manifestations at baseline. The mean age of the patients was 34 years, and 52% were male.

The 162 patients with peripheral manifestations included 143 with arthritis, 52 with enthesitis, and 55 with dactylitis.

Two patient clusters emerge from data

In a cluster analysis that used baseline clinical features, the researchers divided the patients into cluster A (of which 242 of 248 were patients with axSpA) and cluster B (of which 104 of 119 were patients with pSpA). Most of the patients with peripheral manifestations were in cluster B (117 of 162 [72%]), compared with cluster A (45 of 162 [28%]).

A longitudinal analysis included 195 patients who completed a minimum 2-year follow-up. The longitudinal analysis identified high- and low-disease activity trajectories in each cluster.

In axSpA-predominant cluster A, patients with “high” trajectory had high disease activity levels at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 3.2) that remained relatively stable, while those in the low-trajectory group (62%) had less disease activity at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 2.0), which then further declined during follow-up.

Patients in the high trajectory in cluster A were more often affected by peripheral manifestations, “which remained a significant predictor in multivariate analysis,” with an odds ratio of 2.4, the researchers noted. In addition, patients with peripheral manifestations were significantly more likely to have persistent high disease activity despite starting biologics earlier than patients without peripheral manifestations (hazard ratio, 2.1).

Patients in pSpA-predominant cluster B showed differences that were similar to those seen in cluster A in terms of high– and low–disease activity trajectories (mean ASDAS-CRP of 3.6 and 2.8, respectively), but among these patients, a high level of disease activity was significantly associated with elevated CRP, rather than with peripheral disease, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of patients who did not complete the follow-up, which reduced the sample size for longitudinal analysis. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of patients from the full SpA spectrum, a geographically spread-out patient population, and a study design that mirrored clinical practice, the researchers noted.

The Be-Giant cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie. Several authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies.

Peripheral manifestations contribute significantly to disease activity in adults with spondyloarthritis (SpA), point toward a generally worse prognosis, and play a big role in defining the phenotypic clustering of the heterogenous disease, according to findings from what researchers called the first prospective study “to comprehensively describe the prevalence, clinical patterns, and prognostic implications of peripheral manifestations across the entire SpA spectrum.”

The stratification of patients in the study based on the presence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis) led to the identification of an endotype with unfavorable outcomes, which not only has prognostic value but supports the need for an endotype-based treatment approach rather than one centered on C-reactive protein (CRP) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

The findings “advocate strongly for the presence of a distinct SpA endotype, based on potentially different immunopathological mechanisms and characterized by high disease activity at initial presentation with lack of substantial improvement upon follow-up,” first author Ann-Sophie De Craemer, MD, of Ghent, Belgium, and colleagues wrote.

Because the diagnostic and prognostic value of peripheral manifestations has not been well studied in SpA in general and in newly diagnosed patients in particular, Dr. De Craemer and associates decided to analyze their impact in 367 patients in the Be-Giant (BelGian Inflammatory Arthritis and spoNdylitis cohorT) cohort, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort of newly diagnosed patients with SpA in Belgium. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The study population included 257 (70%) patients with axial-predominant SpA (axSpA) as classified by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria and 110 (30%) with peripheral-predominant SpA (pSpA) as defined by ASAS criteria. A total of 52 patients with axSpA had peripheral manifestations at baseline. The mean age of the patients was 34 years, and 52% were male.

The 162 patients with peripheral manifestations included 143 with arthritis, 52 with enthesitis, and 55 with dactylitis.

Two patient clusters emerge from data

In a cluster analysis that used baseline clinical features, the researchers divided the patients into cluster A (of which 242 of 248 were patients with axSpA) and cluster B (of which 104 of 119 were patients with pSpA). Most of the patients with peripheral manifestations were in cluster B (117 of 162 [72%]), compared with cluster A (45 of 162 [28%]).

A longitudinal analysis included 195 patients who completed a minimum 2-year follow-up. The longitudinal analysis identified high- and low-disease activity trajectories in each cluster.

In axSpA-predominant cluster A, patients with “high” trajectory had high disease activity levels at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 3.2) that remained relatively stable, while those in the low-trajectory group (62%) had less disease activity at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 2.0), which then further declined during follow-up.

Patients in the high trajectory in cluster A were more often affected by peripheral manifestations, “which remained a significant predictor in multivariate analysis,” with an odds ratio of 2.4, the researchers noted. In addition, patients with peripheral manifestations were significantly more likely to have persistent high disease activity despite starting biologics earlier than patients without peripheral manifestations (hazard ratio, 2.1).

Patients in pSpA-predominant cluster B showed differences that were similar to those seen in cluster A in terms of high– and low–disease activity trajectories (mean ASDAS-CRP of 3.6 and 2.8, respectively), but among these patients, a high level of disease activity was significantly associated with elevated CRP, rather than with peripheral disease, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of patients who did not complete the follow-up, which reduced the sample size for longitudinal analysis. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of patients from the full SpA spectrum, a geographically spread-out patient population, and a study design that mirrored clinical practice, the researchers noted.

The Be-Giant cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie. Several authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies.

Peripheral manifestations contribute significantly to disease activity in adults with spondyloarthritis (SpA), point toward a generally worse prognosis, and play a big role in defining the phenotypic clustering of the heterogenous disease, according to findings from what researchers called the first prospective study “to comprehensively describe the prevalence, clinical patterns, and prognostic implications of peripheral manifestations across the entire SpA spectrum.”

The stratification of patients in the study based on the presence of peripheral manifestations (arthritis, enthesitis, and/or dactylitis) led to the identification of an endotype with unfavorable outcomes, which not only has prognostic value but supports the need for an endotype-based treatment approach rather than one centered on C-reactive protein (CRP) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS).

The findings “advocate strongly for the presence of a distinct SpA endotype, based on potentially different immunopathological mechanisms and characterized by high disease activity at initial presentation with lack of substantial improvement upon follow-up,” first author Ann-Sophie De Craemer, MD, of Ghent, Belgium, and colleagues wrote.

Because the diagnostic and prognostic value of peripheral manifestations has not been well studied in SpA in general and in newly diagnosed patients in particular, Dr. De Craemer and associates decided to analyze their impact in 367 patients in the Be-Giant (BelGian Inflammatory Arthritis and spoNdylitis cohorT) cohort, a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort of newly diagnosed patients with SpA in Belgium. The study was published in Rheumatology.

The study population included 257 (70%) patients with axial-predominant SpA (axSpA) as classified by Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria and 110 (30%) with peripheral-predominant SpA (pSpA) as defined by ASAS criteria. A total of 52 patients with axSpA had peripheral manifestations at baseline. The mean age of the patients was 34 years, and 52% were male.

The 162 patients with peripheral manifestations included 143 with arthritis, 52 with enthesitis, and 55 with dactylitis.

Two patient clusters emerge from data

In a cluster analysis that used baseline clinical features, the researchers divided the patients into cluster A (of which 242 of 248 were patients with axSpA) and cluster B (of which 104 of 119 were patients with pSpA). Most of the patients with peripheral manifestations were in cluster B (117 of 162 [72%]), compared with cluster A (45 of 162 [28%]).

A longitudinal analysis included 195 patients who completed a minimum 2-year follow-up. The longitudinal analysis identified high- and low-disease activity trajectories in each cluster.

In axSpA-predominant cluster A, patients with “high” trajectory had high disease activity levels at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 3.2) that remained relatively stable, while those in the low-trajectory group (62%) had less disease activity at baseline (mean ASDAS-CRP, 2.0), which then further declined during follow-up.

Patients in the high trajectory in cluster A were more often affected by peripheral manifestations, “which remained a significant predictor in multivariate analysis,” with an odds ratio of 2.4, the researchers noted. In addition, patients with peripheral manifestations were significantly more likely to have persistent high disease activity despite starting biologics earlier than patients without peripheral manifestations (hazard ratio, 2.1).

Patients in pSpA-predominant cluster B showed differences that were similar to those seen in cluster A in terms of high– and low–disease activity trajectories (mean ASDAS-CRP of 3.6 and 2.8, respectively), but among these patients, a high level of disease activity was significantly associated with elevated CRP, rather than with peripheral disease, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the exclusion of patients who did not complete the follow-up, which reduced the sample size for longitudinal analysis. However, the results were strengthened by the inclusion of patients from the full SpA spectrum, a geographically spread-out patient population, and a study design that mirrored clinical practice, the researchers noted.

The Be-Giant cohort was supported by an unrestricted grant from AbbVie. Several authors reported financial relationships with AbbVie and other pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

More than half of patients with axial spondyloarthritis in a survey of ArthritisPower Registry participants said they discussed a change in treatment with their doctor at their most recent visit, and these discussions were about changing medication or increasing the dose in more than two-thirds of instances.

The cross-sectional survey, published in ACR Open Rheumatology, is believed to be the first “to look at treatment decision-making from the patient perspective, meaning this is our first quantitative analysis to examine how patients think about important disease management decisions and communicate with their doctor about their care,” W. Benjamin Nowell, PhD, director of patient-centered research at CreakyJoints and principal investigator of the ArthritisPower registry, said in a news release.

“This study makes it clear that there are unmet treatment needs in the axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] patient community,” senior author Jessica A. Walsh, MD, rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in the release. “In the future, we need to identify the tools that this specific arthritis community needs to ensure that shared decision-making about disease management and treatment escalation is working effectively between the patient and the provider.”
 

Survey results

Of the survey’s 274 participants with physician-diagnosed axSpA, 57% said they discussed treatment change at their last physician visit, and nearly half of the time it was brought up by the patient. About 80% of patients in the survey said they researched treatment changes before the visit.

The most common discussion points were about changing medicines or increasing dose (69%), compared with reducing dose (28%) or switching treatments (39%). Another 12% of respondents entered free-text responses to an “other” option with things such as exercise, physical therapy, surgery, waiting on results, insurance, and pregnancy.

Close to half (47%) of the patients were taking biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), followed by prescription NSAIDs (44%), steroids (16%), or conventional synthetic DMARDs (11%). Half of all patients said they also took prescription muscle relaxers, nerve pain medications or antidepressants, and opioids.

More than half (55%) of patients taking a bDMARD were at least somewhat satisfied with their treatment for axSpA, and about half were satisfied with their control of axSpA-related pain.

Of the 12% of patients in the survey who reported being very satisfied overall with their treatment, 77% were taking a bDMARD, and these bDMARD users said that they prioritized the prevention of long-term consequences and their physician’s advice in their decision-making process.

A large percentage – 43% – said they were somewhat or very dissatisfied with treatment, and nearly two-thirds of these patients had discussed treatment change at their last physician visit.

A large majority of patients who discussed a treatment change agreed to it (85%), most often because their disease was not controlled by their previous treatment or because they thought it could be better controlled by a change in treatment.

The survey respondents were about 50 years old on average, and most were women (87%) and White (85%). They experienced a delay in diagnosis averaging more than 10 years from first onset of axSpA symptoms to initial axSpA diagnosis by a physician.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. The study was also indirectly partially supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute for ArthritisPower. Dr. Nowell reported receiving grants/contracts from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, and PCORI and is an employee of the Global Healthy Living Foundation. The GHLF receives grants, sponsorships, and contracts from pharmaceutical manufacturers and private foundations. Five authors are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly. Two authors reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Reducing the dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors by approximately one-third did not increase disease activity in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a stable low–disease activity state, according to findings from two parallel controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Disease activity–guided dose optimization (DAGDO) can reduce drug exposure in patients with PsA or axSpA who have low disease activity, but its impact on increased disease activity has not been as well studied as full-dose continuation, Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

“DAGDO or discontinuation of bDMARDs [biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] as a standard of care in adults with stable axSpA is currently discouraged by” the American College of Rheumatology, the researchers said. However, guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology allow for the slow tapering of bDMARDs in patients with sustained remission.

In a controlled, retrospective cohort study published in Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from their outpatient clinic, which initiated a specific TNF inhibitor DAGDO protocol in 2010 for patients with RA, PsA, and axSpA. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) for patients with PsA and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for patients with axSpA.

The study population included 153 patients with PsA who had a mean DAS28-CRP of 6.5 and 171 with axSpA who had a similar mean number of disease activity measurements (6.5 with DAS28-CRP and 6.4 with BASDAI). Median follow-up time was several months short of 4 years in each group. Treatment was divided into three periods: continuation of full TNF inhibitor dose, TNF inhibitor DAGDO, and a period with stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO.

Overall, no significant differences appeared in mean DAS28-CRP and BASDAI over the course of the study between the period of the full TNF inhibitor dose continuation and both the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period and the stable TNF inhibitor dose period. Among PsA patients, the mean DAS28-CRP was 1.94 for the full-dose period, 2.0 in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 1.97 in the stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO period. For axSpA patients, the mean BASDAI was 3.44, 3.47, and 3.48, respectively, for the three periods. Older age, longer disease duration, and longer follow-up were significantly associated with higher DAS28-CRP scores in patients with PsA, and older age and female gender were significantly associated with higher BASDAI scores in patients with axSpA.

The mean percentage of daily defined dose (%DDD) for patients with PsA was 108% during the full dose period, 62% in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 78% with stable TNF inhibitor after DAGDO, and nearly the same for patients with axSPA at 108%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.

The %DDD represents “a modest degree of tapering,” compared with studies in RA patients, the researchers noted. “Explanations for this difference could be that the full dose-reduction potential was not met due to suboptimal execution of the local protocol, whereas in prospective intervention trials, protocol adherence is likely higher.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and potential for nocebo effects, possible incorrect attribution, and information bias, as well as the use of DAS28-CRP and BASDAI rather than more modern measurement tools, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and real-world clinical setting, frequent assessment of disease activity, long-term follow-up, and the performance of DAGDO by rheumatologists familiar with the measuring tools, they said. The results suggest that DAGDO is safe and effective for patients with low disease activity in either condition, but randomized, prospective studies can provide more definitive evidence.

The study received no outside funding. One author disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Reducing the dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors by approximately one-third did not increase disease activity in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a stable low–disease activity state, according to findings from two parallel controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Disease activity–guided dose optimization (DAGDO) can reduce drug exposure in patients with PsA or axSpA who have low disease activity, but its impact on increased disease activity has not been as well studied as full-dose continuation, Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

“DAGDO or discontinuation of bDMARDs [biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] as a standard of care in adults with stable axSpA is currently discouraged by” the American College of Rheumatology, the researchers said. However, guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology allow for the slow tapering of bDMARDs in patients with sustained remission.

In a controlled, retrospective cohort study published in Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from their outpatient clinic, which initiated a specific TNF inhibitor DAGDO protocol in 2010 for patients with RA, PsA, and axSpA. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) for patients with PsA and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for patients with axSpA.

The study population included 153 patients with PsA who had a mean DAS28-CRP of 6.5 and 171 with axSpA who had a similar mean number of disease activity measurements (6.5 with DAS28-CRP and 6.4 with BASDAI). Median follow-up time was several months short of 4 years in each group. Treatment was divided into three periods: continuation of full TNF inhibitor dose, TNF inhibitor DAGDO, and a period with stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO.

Overall, no significant differences appeared in mean DAS28-CRP and BASDAI over the course of the study between the period of the full TNF inhibitor dose continuation and both the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period and the stable TNF inhibitor dose period. Among PsA patients, the mean DAS28-CRP was 1.94 for the full-dose period, 2.0 in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 1.97 in the stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO period. For axSpA patients, the mean BASDAI was 3.44, 3.47, and 3.48, respectively, for the three periods. Older age, longer disease duration, and longer follow-up were significantly associated with higher DAS28-CRP scores in patients with PsA, and older age and female gender were significantly associated with higher BASDAI scores in patients with axSpA.

The mean percentage of daily defined dose (%DDD) for patients with PsA was 108% during the full dose period, 62% in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 78% with stable TNF inhibitor after DAGDO, and nearly the same for patients with axSPA at 108%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.

The %DDD represents “a modest degree of tapering,” compared with studies in RA patients, the researchers noted. “Explanations for this difference could be that the full dose-reduction potential was not met due to suboptimal execution of the local protocol, whereas in prospective intervention trials, protocol adherence is likely higher.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and potential for nocebo effects, possible incorrect attribution, and information bias, as well as the use of DAS28-CRP and BASDAI rather than more modern measurement tools, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and real-world clinical setting, frequent assessment of disease activity, long-term follow-up, and the performance of DAGDO by rheumatologists familiar with the measuring tools, they said. The results suggest that DAGDO is safe and effective for patients with low disease activity in either condition, but randomized, prospective studies can provide more definitive evidence.

The study received no outside funding. One author disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Reducing the dose of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors by approximately one-third did not increase disease activity in adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a stable low–disease activity state, according to findings from two parallel controlled retrospective cohort studies.

Disease activity–guided dose optimization (DAGDO) can reduce drug exposure in patients with PsA or axSpA who have low disease activity, but its impact on increased disease activity has not been as well studied as full-dose continuation, Celia A.J. Michielsens, MD, of Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote.

“DAGDO or discontinuation of bDMARDs [biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs] as a standard of care in adults with stable axSpA is currently discouraged by” the American College of Rheumatology, the researchers said. However, guidelines from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology allow for the slow tapering of bDMARDs in patients with sustained remission.

In a controlled, retrospective cohort study published in Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from their outpatient clinic, which initiated a specific TNF inhibitor DAGDO protocol in 2010 for patients with RA, PsA, and axSpA. Disease activity was measured using the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) for patients with PsA and the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for patients with axSpA.

The study population included 153 patients with PsA who had a mean DAS28-CRP of 6.5 and 171 with axSpA who had a similar mean number of disease activity measurements (6.5 with DAS28-CRP and 6.4 with BASDAI). Median follow-up time was several months short of 4 years in each group. Treatment was divided into three periods: continuation of full TNF inhibitor dose, TNF inhibitor DAGDO, and a period with stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO.

Overall, no significant differences appeared in mean DAS28-CRP and BASDAI over the course of the study between the period of the full TNF inhibitor dose continuation and both the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period and the stable TNF inhibitor dose period. Among PsA patients, the mean DAS28-CRP was 1.94 for the full-dose period, 2.0 in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 1.97 in the stable TNF inhibitor dose after DAGDO period. For axSpA patients, the mean BASDAI was 3.44, 3.47, and 3.48, respectively, for the three periods. Older age, longer disease duration, and longer follow-up were significantly associated with higher DAS28-CRP scores in patients with PsA, and older age and female gender were significantly associated with higher BASDAI scores in patients with axSpA.

The mean percentage of daily defined dose (%DDD) for patients with PsA was 108% during the full dose period, 62% in the TNF inhibitor DAGDO period, and 78% with stable TNF inhibitor after DAGDO, and nearly the same for patients with axSPA at 108%, 62%, and 72%, respectively.

The %DDD represents “a modest degree of tapering,” compared with studies in RA patients, the researchers noted. “Explanations for this difference could be that the full dose-reduction potential was not met due to suboptimal execution of the local protocol, whereas in prospective intervention trials, protocol adherence is likely higher.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the open-label design and potential for nocebo effects, possible incorrect attribution, and information bias, as well as the use of DAS28-CRP and BASDAI rather than more modern measurement tools, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and real-world clinical setting, frequent assessment of disease activity, long-term follow-up, and the performance of DAGDO by rheumatologists familiar with the measuring tools, they said. The results suggest that DAGDO is safe and effective for patients with low disease activity in either condition, but randomized, prospective studies can provide more definitive evidence.

The study received no outside funding. One author disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.

“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
 

Findings mirror those seen in other settings

These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”

Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).

The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).

One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.

All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.

The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.

“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”

Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.

The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.

 

Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data

The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.

Northwestern University

“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.

The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.

“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.

Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.

“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.

On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”

The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.

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

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.

“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
 

Findings mirror those seen in other settings

These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”

Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).

The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).

One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.

All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.

The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.

“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”

Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.

The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.

 

Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data

The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.

Northwestern University

“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.

The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.

“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.

Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.

“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.

On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”

The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.

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

Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.

“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
 

Findings mirror those seen in other settings

These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”

Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
 

Study details

The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).

The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).

One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.

All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.

The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.

“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”

Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.

The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.

 

Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data

The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.

Northwestern University

“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.

The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.

“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.

Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.

“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.

Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.

On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”

The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

jevans@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

jevans@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration approved a supplement to the biologics license application of the adalimumab biosimilar drug Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm) that makes it the first interchangeable biosimilar with Humira (adalimumab), the original branded version of the drug, its manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim announced Oct. 15.

The FDA originally approved Cyltezo in 2017 for the treatment of multiple chronic inflammatory diseases, including seven of Humira’s nine indications for adults and pediatric patients: rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and plaque psoriasis.

The interchangeability designation means that Cyltezo was tested in an additional clinical trial in which patients were successfully switched back and forth multiple times from Humira to Cyltezo and allows pharmacists to autosubstitute Humira with Cyltezo. In these cases, individual state laws control how and whether physicians will be notified of this switch.

Cyltezo is just the second biosimilar to be designated as interchangeable with its originator biologic product. The first approval, announced July 28, was for the interchangeability of Semglee (insulin glargine-yfgn) with the originator Lantus.

The agency based its decision on positive data from the VOLTAIRE-X study of 238 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis in which Cyltezo had no meaningful clinical differences from Humira in pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety between the switching and continuous treatment groups.

Cyltezo will not be commercially available in the United States until July 1, 2023, according to Boehringer Ingelheim.

jevans@mdedge.com

The selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) significantly improved symptoms in adults with either ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) when compared with placebo in a pair of studies from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, according to press releases issued Oct. 7 by manufacturer AbbVie.

Upadacitinib is currently approved in the European Union for patients with active AS, as well as patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and active psoriatic arthritis. Upadacitinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults with moderately to severely active RA, but is not currently approved for active AS or nr-axSpA.

In study 1, significantly more patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 40) response criteria at week 14, compared with placebo (45% vs. 18%) after 14 weeks (P < .0001).

The study of 420 patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy gave half upadacitinib for 104 weeks and the other half placebo for 14 weeks, followed by upadacitinib for 90 weeks.

Patients treated with upadacitinib showed significant improvements in secondary endpoints of back pain, inflammation, physical function, and disease activity at week 14, compared with placebo.

Significantly more upadacitinib- than placebo-treated patients reached low disease activity on the AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) (44% vs. 10%). Upadacitinib also led to significantly greater improvements from baseline than did placebo on MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) Score for Spine, Patient’s Assessment of Total Back Pain, and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) score (–2.26 vs. –1.09).

COVID-19 and headache were the most common adverse events that were seen with upadacitinib during the first 14 weeks of the study (occurring in 3% or more). No adverse events led to study discontinuation among patients taking upadacitinib, compared with 1.4% on placebo, and serious adverse events were reported in 2.8% taking upadacitinib and in 0.5% on placebo. Serious infections with upadacitinib included four cases of COVID-19 and one case of uveitis.

Study 2 in patients with nr-axSpA

Study 2, which included 313 adults with nr-axSpA, yielded results similar to those of study 1 on the primary endpoint of meeting ASAS40 response criteria at week 14 (45% with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily vs. 23% with placebo; P < .0001), as well as on a variety of secondary efficacy endpoints and safety data.

Significantly better responses were observed at week 14 with upadacitinib for rate of low disease activity according to ASDAS (42% vs. 18%), changes in MRI SPARCC Scores for SI joints (–2.49 vs. 0.57), Patient’s Assessment of Total Back Pain (-2.91 vs. -2.00), and physical function based on the BASFI (–2.61 vs. –1.47).

The most common adverse events at 14 weeks, occurring in at least 3% of patients taking upadacitinib, included headache, COVID-19, nasopharyngitis, and nausea. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 2.6% with upadacitinib and 1.3% with placebo; serious adverse events occurred in 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively.

Serious infections included COVID-19-induced pneumonia and pyelonephritis in patients taking upadacitinib and one case of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome with placebo.

The full results of the SELECT-AXIS 2 trial will be presented at a future medical meeting and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, according to AbbVie.

The selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) significantly improved symptoms in adults with either ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) when compared with placebo in a pair of studies from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, according to press releases issued Oct. 7 by manufacturer AbbVie.

Upadacitinib is currently approved in the European Union for patients with active AS, as well as patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and active psoriatic arthritis. Upadacitinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults with moderately to severely active RA, but is not currently approved for active AS or nr-axSpA.

In study 1, significantly more patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 40) response criteria at week 14, compared with placebo (45% vs. 18%) after 14 weeks (P < .0001).

The study of 420 patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy gave half upadacitinib for 104 weeks and the other half placebo for 14 weeks, followed by upadacitinib for 90 weeks.

Patients treated with upadacitinib showed significant improvements in secondary endpoints of back pain, inflammation, physical function, and disease activity at week 14, compared with placebo.

Significantly more upadacitinib- than placebo-treated patients reached low disease activity on the AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) (44% vs. 10%). Upadacitinib also led to significantly greater improvements from baseline than did placebo on MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) Score for Spine, Patient’s Assessment of Total Back Pain, and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) score (–2.26 vs. –1.09).

COVID-19 and headache were the most common adverse events that were seen with upadacitinib during the first 14 weeks of the study (occurring in 3% or more). No adverse events led to study discontinuation among patients taking upadacitinib, compared with 1.4% on placebo, and serious adverse events were reported in 2.8% taking upadacitinib and in 0.5% on placebo. Serious infections with upadacitinib included four cases of COVID-19 and one case of uveitis.

Study 2 in patients with nr-axSpA

Study 2, which included 313 adults with nr-axSpA, yielded results similar to those of study 1 on the primary endpoint of meeting ASAS40 response criteria at week 14 (45% with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily vs. 23% with placebo; P < .0001), as well as on a variety of secondary efficacy endpoints and safety data.

Significantly better responses were observed at week 14 with upadacitinib for rate of low disease activity according to ASDAS (42% vs. 18%), changes in MRI SPARCC Scores for SI joints (–2.49 vs. 0.57), Patient’s Assessment of Total Back Pain (-2.91 vs. -2.00), and physical function based on the BASFI (–2.61 vs. –1.47).

The most common adverse events at 14 weeks, occurring in at least 3% of patients taking upadacitinib, included headache, COVID-19, nasopharyngitis, and nausea. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 2.6% with upadacitinib and 1.3% with placebo; serious adverse events occurred in 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively.

Serious infections included COVID-19-induced pneumonia and pyelonephritis in patients taking upadacitinib and one case of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome with placebo.

The full results of the SELECT-AXIS 2 trial will be presented at a future medical meeting and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, according to AbbVie.

The selective and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) significantly improved symptoms in adults with either ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) when compared with placebo in a pair of studies from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, according to press releases issued Oct. 7 by manufacturer AbbVie.

Upadacitinib is currently approved in the European Union for patients with active AS, as well as patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and active psoriatic arthritis. Upadacitinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for adults with moderately to severely active RA, but is not currently approved for active AS or nr-axSpA.

In study 1, significantly more patients with AS who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily met the primary endpoint of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS 40) response criteria at week 14, compared with placebo (45% vs. 18%) after 14 weeks (P < .0001).

The study of 420 patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy gave half upadacitinib for 104 weeks and the other half placebo for 14 weeks, followed by upadacitinib for 90 weeks.

Patients treated with upadacitinib showed significant improvements in secondary endpoints of back pain, inflammation, physical function, and disease activity at week 14, compared with placebo.

Significantly more upadacitinib- than placebo-treated patients reached low disease activity on the AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) (44% vs. 10%). Upadacitinib also led to significantly greater improvements from baseline than did placebo on MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) Score for Spine, Patient’s Assessment of Total Back Pain, and Bath AS Functional Index (BASFI) score (–2.26 vs. –1.09).

COVID-19 and headache were the most common adverse events that were seen with upadacitinib during the first 14 weeks of the study (occurring in 3% or more). No adverse events led to study discontinuation among patients taking upadacitinib, compared with 1.4% on placebo, and serious adverse events were reported in 2.8% taking upadacitinib and in 0.5% on placebo. Serious infections with upadacitinib included four cases of COVID-19 and one case of uveitis.

Study 2 in patients with nr-axSpA

Study 2, which included 313 adults with nr-axSpA, yielded results similar to those of study 1 on the primary endpoint of meeting ASAS40 response criteria at week 14 (45% with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily vs. 23% with placebo; P < .0001), as well as on a variety of secondary efficacy endpoints and safety data.

Significantly better responses were observed at week 14 with upadacitinib for rate of low disease activity according to ASDAS (42% vs. 18%), changes in MRI SPARCC Scores for SI joints (–2.49 vs. 0.57), Patient’s Assessment of Total Back Pain (-2.91 vs. -2.00), and physical function based on the BASFI (–2.61 vs. –1.47).

The most common adverse events at 14 weeks, occurring in at least 3% of patients taking upadacitinib, included headache, COVID-19, nasopharyngitis, and nausea. Adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in 2.6% with upadacitinib and 1.3% with placebo; serious adverse events occurred in 2.6% and 1.3%, respectively.

Serious infections included COVID-19-induced pneumonia and pyelonephritis in patients taking upadacitinib and one case of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome with placebo.

The full results of the SELECT-AXIS 2 trial will be presented at a future medical meeting and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, according to AbbVie.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Older age, higher subjective disease activity, and exercising for more than 120 minutes per week were three factors linked to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who switched from their original tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment within 2 years in a U.S.-based study.

Data from the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS) also found that higher levels of inflammation, but not radiographic disease, were linked to patients changing from one TNFi to another, or to an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor.

“Different factors were associated in AS patients who switch from their initial TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or JAK inhibitor within 2 years versus after 2 years of treatment,” John D. Reveille, MD, professor and vice chair of rheumatology and clinical immunogenetics with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, said at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

“We’re currently looking at different approaches to analyzing these data. And, certainly, this needs need to be looked at in other cohorts,” Dr. Reveille said.

PSOAS is a prospective observational cohort study that has been looking at predictors of AS severity for almost 20 years. Started in 2002, the study has routinely collected a whole host of data on various demographic and disease-related factors.

The reasoning behind the current analysis of PSOAS data was that a relatively recent study based on a commercial claims database had found that many patients with AS do not remain on their initial TNFi 2 years after initiation. So, Dr. Reveille and associates decided to look at the factors that could be influencing whether patients who started a TNFi would remain on their original drug in the PSOAS cohort.

In all, 533 patients from the PSOAS cohort who had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 496) were treated with a TNFi, 34 had received an IL-17 inhibitor, and 3 had received a JAK inhibitor.

Of the 496 patients treated with a TNFi, almost 70% (n = 344) persisted with this treatment for the duration of the study. Of those that switched to another TNFi or IL-17 or JAK inhibitor treatment, 20% (n = 101) did so within 2 years and the remaining 10% (n = 51) after 2 years.

Multinominal logistic regression modeling revealed a number of different factors that were associated with switching within 2 years versus switching after 2 years.

Compared to patients who persisted with treatment throughout the study period, patients who switched from their original TNFi within 2 years were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 for ≥ 40 vs. < 40 years; P = .002), have a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score at baseline (OR, 1.73 for ≥ 4 vs. < 4; P = .03), higher C-reactive protein levels (OR, 1.94 for ≥ 0.8 mg/dL vs. < 0.8 mg/dL, P = .004), and greater weekly duration of exercise (OR, 1.95 for ≥ 120 minutes per week vs. < 120; P <.001).

Switchers also were less likely to have severe radiographic disease at baseline, as determined by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS, OR, 0.63; P = .03), and less likely to be current smokers (OR, 0.69; P < .001).

Factors associated with switching after 2 years versus persisting with treatment were higher baseline BASDAI (OR, 2.31; P = .01), exercising more than 120 minutes per week (OR, 1.66; P = .03), and having more comorbidities (OR, 1.63 for ≥ 2 vs. < 2, P = .04).

However, patients who switched after 2 years were less likely to be depressed (OR, 0.35; P = .002) or to have a longer baseline disease duration (OR, 0.27 for ≥ 20 years vs. < 20 years P < .001).

The association observed between switching within 2 years and lower likelihood of currently smoking was a “little bit puzzling,” one delegate said after Dr. Reveille’s presentation. “The opposite has been shown in the literature, and current smokers seem to be refractory to TNF inhibitor therapy,” the delegate observed.

“I was confounded when I saw the data,” Dr. Reveille acknowledged. Because this was an observational study, this finding needs more investigation, he agreed. “Interestingly, we have seen this negative association with some other parameters, too,” he added.

The HLA-B27 carrier and radiographic status were carefully checked, so there should not be a problem with the diagnosis, Dr. Reveille reassured. Further analyses of the findings are now warranted.

Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Additional funding was received from the Spondyloarthritis Association of America and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Reveille made no personal disclosures; a coauthor of the abstract was an employee of Eli Lilly.

Older age, higher subjective disease activity, and exercising for more than 120 minutes per week were three factors linked to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who switched from their original tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment within 2 years in a U.S.-based study.

Data from the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS) also found that higher levels of inflammation, but not radiographic disease, were linked to patients changing from one TNFi to another, or to an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor.

“Different factors were associated in AS patients who switch from their initial TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or JAK inhibitor within 2 years versus after 2 years of treatment,” John D. Reveille, MD, professor and vice chair of rheumatology and clinical immunogenetics with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, said at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

“We’re currently looking at different approaches to analyzing these data. And, certainly, this needs need to be looked at in other cohorts,” Dr. Reveille said.

PSOAS is a prospective observational cohort study that has been looking at predictors of AS severity for almost 20 years. Started in 2002, the study has routinely collected a whole host of data on various demographic and disease-related factors.

The reasoning behind the current analysis of PSOAS data was that a relatively recent study based on a commercial claims database had found that many patients with AS do not remain on their initial TNFi 2 years after initiation. So, Dr. Reveille and associates decided to look at the factors that could be influencing whether patients who started a TNFi would remain on their original drug in the PSOAS cohort.

In all, 533 patients from the PSOAS cohort who had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 496) were treated with a TNFi, 34 had received an IL-17 inhibitor, and 3 had received a JAK inhibitor.

Of the 496 patients treated with a TNFi, almost 70% (n = 344) persisted with this treatment for the duration of the study. Of those that switched to another TNFi or IL-17 or JAK inhibitor treatment, 20% (n = 101) did so within 2 years and the remaining 10% (n = 51) after 2 years.

Multinominal logistic regression modeling revealed a number of different factors that were associated with switching within 2 years versus switching after 2 years.

Compared to patients who persisted with treatment throughout the study period, patients who switched from their original TNFi within 2 years were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 for ≥ 40 vs. < 40 years; P = .002), have a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score at baseline (OR, 1.73 for ≥ 4 vs. < 4; P = .03), higher C-reactive protein levels (OR, 1.94 for ≥ 0.8 mg/dL vs. < 0.8 mg/dL, P = .004), and greater weekly duration of exercise (OR, 1.95 for ≥ 120 minutes per week vs. < 120; P <.001).

Switchers also were less likely to have severe radiographic disease at baseline, as determined by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS, OR, 0.63; P = .03), and less likely to be current smokers (OR, 0.69; P < .001).

Factors associated with switching after 2 years versus persisting with treatment were higher baseline BASDAI (OR, 2.31; P = .01), exercising more than 120 minutes per week (OR, 1.66; P = .03), and having more comorbidities (OR, 1.63 for ≥ 2 vs. < 2, P = .04).

However, patients who switched after 2 years were less likely to be depressed (OR, 0.35; P = .002) or to have a longer baseline disease duration (OR, 0.27 for ≥ 20 years vs. < 20 years P < .001).

The association observed between switching within 2 years and lower likelihood of currently smoking was a “little bit puzzling,” one delegate said after Dr. Reveille’s presentation. “The opposite has been shown in the literature, and current smokers seem to be refractory to TNF inhibitor therapy,” the delegate observed.

“I was confounded when I saw the data,” Dr. Reveille acknowledged. Because this was an observational study, this finding needs more investigation, he agreed. “Interestingly, we have seen this negative association with some other parameters, too,” he added.

The HLA-B27 carrier and radiographic status were carefully checked, so there should not be a problem with the diagnosis, Dr. Reveille reassured. Further analyses of the findings are now warranted.

Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Additional funding was received from the Spondyloarthritis Association of America and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Reveille made no personal disclosures; a coauthor of the abstract was an employee of Eli Lilly.

Older age, higher subjective disease activity, and exercising for more than 120 minutes per week were three factors linked to patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who switched from their original tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment within 2 years in a U.S.-based study.

Data from the Prospective Study of Outcomes in Ankylosing Spondylitis (PSOAS) also found that higher levels of inflammation, but not radiographic disease, were linked to patients changing from one TNFi to another, or to an interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitor or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor.

“Different factors were associated in AS patients who switch from their initial TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitor, or JAK inhibitor within 2 years versus after 2 years of treatment,” John D. Reveille, MD, professor and vice chair of rheumatology and clinical immunogenetics with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, said at the 12th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

“We’re currently looking at different approaches to analyzing these data. And, certainly, this needs need to be looked at in other cohorts,” Dr. Reveille said.

PSOAS is a prospective observational cohort study that has been looking at predictors of AS severity for almost 20 years. Started in 2002, the study has routinely collected a whole host of data on various demographic and disease-related factors.

The reasoning behind the current analysis of PSOAS data was that a relatively recent study based on a commercial claims database had found that many patients with AS do not remain on their initial TNFi 2 years after initiation. So, Dr. Reveille and associates decided to look at the factors that could be influencing whether patients who started a TNFi would remain on their original drug in the PSOAS cohort.

In all, 533 patients from the PSOAS cohort who had at least 2 years of follow-up were included in the analysis. The majority (n = 496) were treated with a TNFi, 34 had received an IL-17 inhibitor, and 3 had received a JAK inhibitor.

Of the 496 patients treated with a TNFi, almost 70% (n = 344) persisted with this treatment for the duration of the study. Of those that switched to another TNFi or IL-17 or JAK inhibitor treatment, 20% (n = 101) did so within 2 years and the remaining 10% (n = 51) after 2 years.

Multinominal logistic regression modeling revealed a number of different factors that were associated with switching within 2 years versus switching after 2 years.

Compared to patients who persisted with treatment throughout the study period, patients who switched from their original TNFi within 2 years were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 2.0 for ≥ 40 vs. < 40 years; P = .002), have a higher Bath Ankylosing Spondyloarthritis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score at baseline (OR, 1.73 for ≥ 4 vs. < 4; P = .03), higher C-reactive protein levels (OR, 1.94 for ≥ 0.8 mg/dL vs. < 0.8 mg/dL, P = .004), and greater weekly duration of exercise (OR, 1.95 for ≥ 120 minutes per week vs. < 120; P <.001).

Switchers also were less likely to have severe radiographic disease at baseline, as determined by the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS, OR, 0.63; P = .03), and less likely to be current smokers (OR, 0.69; P < .001).

Factors associated with switching after 2 years versus persisting with treatment were higher baseline BASDAI (OR, 2.31; P = .01), exercising more than 120 minutes per week (OR, 1.66; P = .03), and having more comorbidities (OR, 1.63 for ≥ 2 vs. < 2, P = .04).

However, patients who switched after 2 years were less likely to be depressed (OR, 0.35; P = .002) or to have a longer baseline disease duration (OR, 0.27 for ≥ 20 years vs. < 20 years P < .001).

The association observed between switching within 2 years and lower likelihood of currently smoking was a “little bit puzzling,” one delegate said after Dr. Reveille’s presentation. “The opposite has been shown in the literature, and current smokers seem to be refractory to TNF inhibitor therapy,” the delegate observed.

“I was confounded when I saw the data,” Dr. Reveille acknowledged. Because this was an observational study, this finding needs more investigation, he agreed. “Interestingly, we have seen this negative association with some other parameters, too,” he added.

The HLA-B27 carrier and radiographic status were carefully checked, so there should not be a problem with the diagnosis, Dr. Reveille reassured. Further analyses of the findings are now warranted.

Funding for the study was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Additional funding was received from the Spondyloarthritis Association of America and Eli Lilly.

Dr. Reveille made no personal disclosures; a coauthor of the abstract was an employee of Eli Lilly.