Cardiovascular Events, Malignancies, and Efficacy Outcomes in Latin American Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Tofacitinib or Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ORAL Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To assess safety/efficacy of tofacitinib and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients from Latin America (LATAM) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: In ORAL Surveillance, 4362 patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or TNFi. This post hoc analysis stratified patients by geographical location (LATAM, n = 1202; non-LATAM, n = 3160). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first event/100 patient-years) and hazard ratios for adverse events of special interest were reported. Efficacy outcomes included Clinical Disease Activity Index and American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses. RESULTS: Risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease and malignancies were less prevalent in the LATAM cohort compared with the non-LATAM cohort. IRs for patients receiving tofacitinib (combined doses) versus TNFi were 0.54 versus 0.28 (LATAM) and 1.14 versus 0.92 (non-LATAM) for major adverse cardiovascular events; 0.58 versus 0.27 (LATAM) and 1.33 versus 0.95 (non-LATAM) for malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer; and 0.69 versus 0.35 (LATAM) and 0.63 versus 0.33 (non-LATAM) for all-cause death. IRs for nonmelanoma skin cancer and venous thromboembolism were also numerically higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi and in the non-LATAM cohort versus LATAM. Efficacy was similar across treatment groups within each cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events of special interest were generally less frequent in LATAM versus non-LATAM patients, reflecting differences in baseline characteristics, and higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi in both cohorts, consistent with the overall findings of ORAL Surveillance. Our findings emphasize the importance of assessing individual risk factors to guide benefit/risk assessment and treatment decisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-ß7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. METHODS: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696. FINDINGS: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114). INTERPRETATION: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Evaluation of factors affecting the frequency and clinical course of COVID-19 in patients using anti-TNF-alpha agents.

OBJECTIVES: Patients being treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-alpha) agents were reported to have better prognosis related to COVID-19. We evaluated the factors affecting the frequency, clinical course, and outcome of COVID-19 in patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid diseases and chronic inflammatory bowel diseases treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents were evaluated retrospectively. The laboratory data in routine visits, frequency of COVID-19, pneumonia, hospitalization and/or intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up and, mortality were recorded. The factors related to COVID-19 frequency and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients (177 males [54.6%] and 147 females [45.4%], mean age: 45.3±12.16 years) was included in the study. In all, 44 (13.6%) patients had COVID-19; of these, 11 (25%) developed pneumonia, 7 (15.9%) were hospitalized, and 1 (2.3%) was followed up in ICU. There was no mortality. The patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were older (mean age: 52±11 years versus 41±12 years, p=0.01), had hypertension and coronary artery disease more frequently (5 cases [55.6%] versus 4 cases [44.4], p=0.02 and 2 cases [100%] versus 0 cases [0%], p=0.014, respectively), and lower eosinophil % (1.35±1.79% versus 2.3±1.45%, p=0.016). The diabetes mellitus was more frequent (66.7 versus 33.3%, p=0.013), and mean eosinophil % was lower among inpatients compared with outpatients (1.29±2.22% versus 2.19±1.37%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents having COVID-19 might have mild clinical course and better prognosis.

Evaluation of factors affecting the frequency and clinical course of COVID-19 in patients using anti-TNF-alpha agents

SUMMARY OBJECTIVES: Patients being treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-alpha) agents were reported to have better prognosis related to COVID-19. We evaluated the factors affecting the frequency, clinical course, and outcome of COVID-19 in patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid diseases and chronic inflammatory bowel diseases treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents were evaluated retrospectively. The laboratory data in routine visits, frequency of COVID-19, pneumonia, hospitalization and/or intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up and, mortality were recorded. The factors related to COVID-19 frequency and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients (177 males [54.6%] and 147 females [45.4%], mean age: 45.3±12.16 years) was included in the study. In all, 44 (13.6%) patients had COVID-19; of these, 11 (25%) developed pneumonia, 7 (15.9%) were hospitalized, and 1 (2.3%) was followed up in ICU. There was no mortality. The patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were older (mean age: 52±11 years versus 41±12 years, p=0.01), had hypertension and coronary artery disease more frequently (5 cases [55.6%] versus 4 cases [44.4], p=0.02 and 2 cases [100%] versus 0 cases [0%], p=0.014, respectively), and lower eosinophil % (1.35±1.79% versus 2.3±1.45%, p=0.016). The diabetes mellitus was more frequent (66.7 versus 33.3%, p=0.013), and mean eosinophil % was lower among inpatients compared with outpatients (1.29±2.22% versus 2.19±1.37%, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the patients treated with anti-TNF-alpha agents having COVID-19 might have mild clinical course and better prognosis.

Cost-utility analysis of the anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in a real-world based model.

BACKGROUND: Spending on drugs provided by the Brazilian Public Health System (BPHS) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increased substantially with the beginning of the supply of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD). This study aims to perform a cost-utility analysis of the most used biological drugs for the treatment of RA in Brazil. METHODS: a Markov model was used to carry out the cost-utility analysis. The data were obtained from a prospective cohort of RA patients using adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab in Brazil. The BPHS perspective was adopted and the time horizon was five years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty. RESULTS: golimumab was the most cost-effective drug. Etanercept was dominated by golimumab. Adalimumab presented an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $95,095.37 compared to golimumab in five years of follow-up. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: the utility among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab was similar and the cost was the component that most impacted the economic model. Therefore, depending on the agreed price with the drug manufacturers, the incremental cost-utility ratio may vary among them.

Are we treating women patients with real axial spondyloarthritis?

INTRODUCTION: During the last years, regulatory agencies raised some relevant concerns with regard to the possibility of administrating biological therapy (BT) to non-SpA patients. Especially, the possibility of treating women with fibromyalgia as non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) was mentioned. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if the gender distribution and clinical pattern of patients with axSpA initiating biological therapy (BT) was modified in clinical practice after its approval for non radiographic-axSpA (nr-axSpA). METHODS: Baseline dataset from a prospective ongoing cohort including all patients with axSpA treated with BT at the Rheumatology Department of University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain, was analysed. Patient's characteristics and disease activity parameters were collected. Based on the approval indication date of BT for nr-axSpA, patients were classified in two periods according to the starting date for the first BT: period 1 (before 2013) and period 2 (during or after 2013). Gender distribution and disease' characteristics were compared between both groups using Chi-square and Student-t tests. RESULTS: In total, 385 patients initiated BT: 266 (69%) in period 1 and 119 (31%) in period 2. No significant differences between both periods were observed regarding gender distribution (38% and 39% of women; p = 0.8). Out of those patients with nr-axSpA initiating BT in period 2, the majority (60%) were men. Women starting BT in period 2 had significantly higher systemic inflammation and mobility restriction compared with women in period 1 [median (interquartile range) CRP 10.2 mg/l (3.0-24.9) vs 3.2 mg/l (2.0-9.4); p = 0.02 and BASMI 2.7 (1.8-3.5) vs. 2.0 (1.2-2.6); p = 0.01, respectively]. In addition, they also presented significantly higher disease activity [BASDAI 6.5 (5.4-8.0) vs. 5.8 (4.6-6.8); p = 0.02; ASDAS, mean (SD) 3.6 ± 3.4 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0; p = 0.02, respectively] and more functional limitation [BASFI 5.7 (3.8-6.7) vs. 4.3 (2.0-6.1); p = 0.01, respectively] than men treated in period 2. CONCLUSIONS: In our clinical practice, the frequency of women who started BT did not increase since their approval for nr-axSpA. Women treated with BT after 2012 had more objective disease activity parameters than before their approval for nr-axSpA treatment.

Psoriasis and pregnancy in the biologic era, a feared scenario. What do we do now?

Psoriasis is a chronic, multifactorial inflammatory disease; its clinical severity can vary widely. Treatment of severe cases during pregnancy is of special interest. To date there is scarce information available and most data comes from other medical specialties that use similar treatments. Immunosuppressors are strongly discouraged during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Amongst biologic agents, anti-TNFα having been the longest on the market has allowed for the most experience. It is known that transplacental transport of these drugs does not occur until gestational week 22, once organogenesis is completed. Within this group certolizumab pegol, seems to be the safest choice, as its molecular structure does not cross the placental barrier. Beyond pregnancy, it is important to take into account these drugs' half-life and passage to breast milk, as well as its impact on neonatal immunization.