Bruce Jancin

PARIS – Dermatologists are likely to do a double-take when they see the long-term efficacy and safety data for tildrakizumab (Ilumya), a high-affinity humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 p19, relative to the performance of older and more familiar biologic agents with other targets in psoriasis, Diamant Thaçi, MD, predicted at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The time to relapse [off tildrakizumab] is very different from what we are used to with other biologics; for example, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” observed Dr. Thaçi, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany).

He presented the 148-week, follow-up results of a pooled analysis of the open-label extension studies of reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2, two pivotal phase 3 randomized double-blind international trials of 1,862 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. The primary outcomes through week 12, which were instrumental in gaining marketing approval for tildrakizumab for treating psoriasis in 2018 from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have been published in the Lancet (2017 Jul 15;390[10091]:276-88).

Dr. Thaçi’s analysis of the 148-week outcomes was restricted to the patients who had at least a 75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 75) at week 28. Nearly 80% of patients on tildrakizumab reached that threshold at week 28 in reSURFACE 1, as did 73% in reSURFACE 2.

The question asked in the extension study was, How do responders to tildrakizumab at 28 weeks fare after nearly 3 years on the drug? And the answer was: very well. Maintenance of at least a PASI 75 response was observed at 148 weeks in 91% of patients on tildrakizumab at the approved 100-mg dose and 92% of those on the 200-mg dose. The FDA-approved regimen is 100 mg by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0 and 4, and then every 12 weeks after that.

An intriguing feature of reSURFACE 1 was that a subset of PASI 75 responders at week 28 got taken off tildrakizumab at that point and switched to double-blind placebo, then restarted on their earlier dose of tildrakizumab upon relapse, which was defined as loss of at least 50% of the achieved on-drug PASI improvement.

At week 64, fully 48 weeks after their last dose of tildrakizumab, the relapse rate was 54% in the group formerly on 100 mg of tildrakizumab and slightly better at 47% in those formerly on 200 mg. The median time to relapse was 226 days in the 100-mg group and 258 days in the higher-dose arm. Those are exceptionally long times to relapse, and it’s useful information to file away in the event a psoriasis patient needs to discontinue biologic therapy for a period of time, Dr. Thaçi observed.

At week 64 – again, off active treatment since week 16 – 63% of the tildrakizumab 100-mg group had lost their previous PASI 75 response, as had 52% who were formerly on tildrakizumab at 200 mg.

The long-term safety profile of tildrakizumab paralleled that of placebo. For example, the exposure-adjusted adverse event rates of serious infections and major adverse cardiovascular events were closely similar in the placebo, tildrakizumab 100 mg, and tildrakizumab 200 mg groups.

There were two notable between-group differences in adverse events of interest: injection site reactions occurred at a rate of 5.36 per 100 person-years with placebo, compared with 1.94 and 2.3 per 100 person-years with tildrakizumab at 100 and 200 mg, respectively; and the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer was 0.97 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo arm, versus 0.5 and 0.49 cases per 100 person-years in the two tildrakizumab arms.

Dr. Thaçi did not present PASI 90 response outcomes because, at the time the reSURFACE trials were planned, PASI 75 was considered state of the art. The PASI 90 data are still being crunched but will be available soon. The 4- and 5-year follow-up data from the long-term extension studies are also on their way.

The reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials and their extension studies were funded by Sun Pharma and Merck. Dr. Thaçi reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant and paid scientific advisor to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

PARIS – Dermatologists are likely to do a double-take when they see the long-term efficacy and safety data for tildrakizumab (Ilumya), a high-affinity humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 p19, relative to the performance of older and more familiar biologic agents with other targets in psoriasis, Diamant Thaçi, MD, predicted at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The time to relapse [off tildrakizumab] is very different from what we are used to with other biologics; for example, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” observed Dr. Thaçi, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany).

He presented the 148-week, follow-up results of a pooled analysis of the open-label extension studies of reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2, two pivotal phase 3 randomized double-blind international trials of 1,862 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. The primary outcomes through week 12, which were instrumental in gaining marketing approval for tildrakizumab for treating psoriasis in 2018 from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have been published in the Lancet (2017 Jul 15;390[10091]:276-88).

Dr. Thaçi’s analysis of the 148-week outcomes was restricted to the patients who had at least a 75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 75) at week 28. Nearly 80% of patients on tildrakizumab reached that threshold at week 28 in reSURFACE 1, as did 73% in reSURFACE 2.

The question asked in the extension study was, How do responders to tildrakizumab at 28 weeks fare after nearly 3 years on the drug? And the answer was: very well. Maintenance of at least a PASI 75 response was observed at 148 weeks in 91% of patients on tildrakizumab at the approved 100-mg dose and 92% of those on the 200-mg dose. The FDA-approved regimen is 100 mg by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0 and 4, and then every 12 weeks after that.

An intriguing feature of reSURFACE 1 was that a subset of PASI 75 responders at week 28 got taken off tildrakizumab at that point and switched to double-blind placebo, then restarted on their earlier dose of tildrakizumab upon relapse, which was defined as loss of at least 50% of the achieved on-drug PASI improvement.

At week 64, fully 48 weeks after their last dose of tildrakizumab, the relapse rate was 54% in the group formerly on 100 mg of tildrakizumab and slightly better at 47% in those formerly on 200 mg. The median time to relapse was 226 days in the 100-mg group and 258 days in the higher-dose arm. Those are exceptionally long times to relapse, and it’s useful information to file away in the event a psoriasis patient needs to discontinue biologic therapy for a period of time, Dr. Thaçi observed.

At week 64 – again, off active treatment since week 16 – 63% of the tildrakizumab 100-mg group had lost their previous PASI 75 response, as had 52% who were formerly on tildrakizumab at 200 mg.

The long-term safety profile of tildrakizumab paralleled that of placebo. For example, the exposure-adjusted adverse event rates of serious infections and major adverse cardiovascular events were closely similar in the placebo, tildrakizumab 100 mg, and tildrakizumab 200 mg groups.

There were two notable between-group differences in adverse events of interest: injection site reactions occurred at a rate of 5.36 per 100 person-years with placebo, compared with 1.94 and 2.3 per 100 person-years with tildrakizumab at 100 and 200 mg, respectively; and the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer was 0.97 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo arm, versus 0.5 and 0.49 cases per 100 person-years in the two tildrakizumab arms.

Dr. Thaçi did not present PASI 90 response outcomes because, at the time the reSURFACE trials were planned, PASI 75 was considered state of the art. The PASI 90 data are still being crunched but will be available soon. The 4- and 5-year follow-up data from the long-term extension studies are also on their way.

The reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials and their extension studies were funded by Sun Pharma and Merck. Dr. Thaçi reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant and paid scientific advisor to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

PARIS – Dermatologists are likely to do a double-take when they see the long-term efficacy and safety data for tildrakizumab (Ilumya), a high-affinity humanized monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-23 p19, relative to the performance of older and more familiar biologic agents with other targets in psoriasis, Diamant Thaçi, MD, predicted at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The time to relapse [off tildrakizumab] is very different from what we are used to with other biologics; for example, the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” observed Dr. Thaçi, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at the University of Lübeck (Germany).

He presented the 148-week, follow-up results of a pooled analysis of the open-label extension studies of reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2, two pivotal phase 3 randomized double-blind international trials of 1,862 patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. The primary outcomes through week 12, which were instrumental in gaining marketing approval for tildrakizumab for treating psoriasis in 2018 from the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, have been published in the Lancet (2017 Jul 15;390[10091]:276-88).

Dr. Thaçi’s analysis of the 148-week outcomes was restricted to the patients who had at least a 75% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (PASI 75) at week 28. Nearly 80% of patients on tildrakizumab reached that threshold at week 28 in reSURFACE 1, as did 73% in reSURFACE 2.

The question asked in the extension study was, How do responders to tildrakizumab at 28 weeks fare after nearly 3 years on the drug? And the answer was: very well. Maintenance of at least a PASI 75 response was observed at 148 weeks in 91% of patients on tildrakizumab at the approved 100-mg dose and 92% of those on the 200-mg dose. The FDA-approved regimen is 100 mg by subcutaneous injection at weeks 0 and 4, and then every 12 weeks after that.

An intriguing feature of reSURFACE 1 was that a subset of PASI 75 responders at week 28 got taken off tildrakizumab at that point and switched to double-blind placebo, then restarted on their earlier dose of tildrakizumab upon relapse, which was defined as loss of at least 50% of the achieved on-drug PASI improvement.

At week 64, fully 48 weeks after their last dose of tildrakizumab, the relapse rate was 54% in the group formerly on 100 mg of tildrakizumab and slightly better at 47% in those formerly on 200 mg. The median time to relapse was 226 days in the 100-mg group and 258 days in the higher-dose arm. Those are exceptionally long times to relapse, and it’s useful information to file away in the event a psoriasis patient needs to discontinue biologic therapy for a period of time, Dr. Thaçi observed.

At week 64 – again, off active treatment since week 16 – 63% of the tildrakizumab 100-mg group had lost their previous PASI 75 response, as had 52% who were formerly on tildrakizumab at 200 mg.

The long-term safety profile of tildrakizumab paralleled that of placebo. For example, the exposure-adjusted adverse event rates of serious infections and major adverse cardiovascular events were closely similar in the placebo, tildrakizumab 100 mg, and tildrakizumab 200 mg groups.

There were two notable between-group differences in adverse events of interest: injection site reactions occurred at a rate of 5.36 per 100 person-years with placebo, compared with 1.94 and 2.3 per 100 person-years with tildrakizumab at 100 and 200 mg, respectively; and the incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer was 0.97 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo arm, versus 0.5 and 0.49 cases per 100 person-years in the two tildrakizumab arms.

Dr. Thaçi did not present PASI 90 response outcomes because, at the time the reSURFACE trials were planned, PASI 75 was considered state of the art. The PASI 90 data are still being crunched but will be available soon. The 4- and 5-year follow-up data from the long-term extension studies are also on their way.

The reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2 trials and their extension studies were funded by Sun Pharma and Merck. Dr. Thaçi reported receiving research grants from and serving as a consultant and paid scientific advisor to those pharmaceutical companies and more than a dozen others.

BARCELONA – A single 40-mg dose of oral propranolol, judiciously timed, constitutes an outside-the-box yet highly promising treatment for anxiety disorders, and perhaps for posttraumatic stress disorder as well, Marieke Soeter, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The concept here is that the beta-blocker, when given with a brief therapist-led reactivation of a fear memory, blocks beta-adrenergic receptors in the brain so as to interfere with the specific proteins required for reconsolidation of that memory, thereby disrupting the reconsolidation process and neutralizing subsequent expression of that memory in its toxic form. In effect, timely administration of one dose of propranolol, a drug that readily crosses the blood/brain barrier, achieves pharmacologically induced amnesia regarding the learned fear, explained Dr. Soeter, a clinical psychologist at TNO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, an independent nonprofit translational research organization.

“It looks like permanent fear erasure. You can never say that something is erased, but we have not been able to get it back,” she said. “Propranolol achieves selective erasure: It targets the emotional component, but knowledge is intact. They know what happened, but they aren’t scared anymore. The fear association is affected, but not the innate fear response to a threat stimulus, so it doesn’t alter reactions to potentially dangerous situations, which is important. If there is a bomb, they still know to run away from it.”

This single-session therapy addressing what psychologists call fear memory reconsolidation is totally outside the box relative to contemporary psychotherapy for anxiety disorders, which typically entails gradual fear extinction learning requiring multiple treatment sessions. But contemporary psychotherapy for anxiety disorders leaves much room for improvement, given that up to 60% of patients experience relapse. That’s probably because the original fear memory remains intact and resurfaces at some point despite initial treatment success, according to Dr. Soeter.

Nearly 2 decades ago, other investigators showed in animal studies that fear memories are not necessarily permanent. Rather, they are modifiable, and even erasable, during the vulnerable period that occurs when the memories are reactivated and become labile.

Later, Dr. Soeter – then at the University of Amsterdam – and her colleagues demonstrated the same phenomenon using Pavlovian fear-conditioning techniques involving pictures and electric shocks in healthy human volunteers. They showed that a dose of propranolol given before memory reactivation blocked the fear response, while nadolol, a beta-blocker that does not cross the blood/brain barrier, did not.

However, since the fear memories they could ethically induce in the psychology laboratory are far less intense than those experienced by patients with anxiety disorders, the researchers next conducted a randomized, double-blind clinical trial in 45 individuals with arachnophobia. Fifteen received 40 mg of propranolol after spending 2 minutes in proximity to a large tarantula, 15 got placebo, and another 15 received propranolol without exposure to a tarantula. One week later, all patients who received propranolol with spider exposure were able to approach and actually pet the tarantula. Pharmacologic disruption of reconsolidation and storage of their fear memory had turned avoidance behavior into approach behavior. This benefit was maintained for at least a year after the brief treatment session (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Dec 15;78[12]:880-6).

“Interestingly, there was no direct effect of propranolol on spider beliefs. Therefore, do we need treatment that targets the cognitive level? These findings challenge one of the fundamental tenets of cognitive-behavioral therapy that emphasizes changes in cognition as central to behavioral modification,” Dr. Soeter said.

Most recently, she and a coinvestigator have been working to pin down the precise conditions under which memory reconsolidation can be targeted to extinguish fear memories. They have shown in a 30-subject study that the process is both time- and sleep-dependent. The propranolol must be given within roughly an hour before to 1 hour after therapeutic reactivation of the fear memory to be effective. And sleep is an absolute necessity: When subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after memory reactivation and administration of propranolol earlier on the same day, with no opportunity for sleep, there was no therapeutic effect: The disturbing fear memory was elicited. However, when subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after taking propranolol the previous day – that is, after a night’s sleep – the fear memory was gone (Nat Commun. 2018 Apr 3;9[1]:1316. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03659-1).

“Postretrieval amnesia requires sleep to happen. Sleep may be the final and necessary link to prevent the process of reconsolidation,” Dr. Soeter said. It’s still unclear, however, how much sleep is required. Perhaps a nap will turn out to be sufficient, she said.

Colleagues at the University of Amsterdam are now using single-dose propranolol-based therapy in patients with a wide range of phobias.

“The effects are pretty amazing,” Dr. Soeter said. “Everything is treatable. It’s almost too good to be true, but these are our findings.”

Based upon her favorable anecdotal experience in treating a Dutch military veteran with severe combat-related PTSD of 10 years’ duration which had proved resistant to multiple conventional and unconventional interventions, a pilot study of single-dose propranolol with traumatic memory reactivation is now being planned in patients with war-related PTSD.

“After one pill and a 20-minute session, this veteran with severe chronic PTSD has no more nightmares, insomnia, or alcohol problems, and he now travels the world,” she said.

Her research met with an enthusiastic reception from other speakers at the ECNP session on PTSD. Eric Vermetten, MD, PhD, welcomed the concept that pharmacologic therapy upon reexposure to fearful cues can impede the molecular and cellular cascade required to reestablish fearful memories. This also is the basis for the extremely encouraging, albeit preliminary, clinical data on ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, as well as 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for therapeutic manipulation of trauma memories.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Targeting reconsolidation of existing fear memories is worthy of looking into further,” declared Dr. Vermetten, professor of psychiatry at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and a military mental health researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

New thinking regarding pharmacotherapy for PTSD is sorely needed, he added. He endorsed a consensus statement by the PTSD Psychopharmacology Working Group that decried what was termed a crisis in pharmacotherapy of PTSD (Biol Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;82[7]:e51-e59. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Mar 14).

“We only have two [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications for PTSD – sertraline and paroxetine – and they were approved back in 2001,” Dr. Vermetten noted. “Research has stalled, and there is a void in new drug development.”

Dr. Soeter’s study of the time- and sleep-dependent nature of propranolol-induced amnesia was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, where she is employed.

bjancin@mdedge.com

BARCELONA – A single 40-mg dose of oral propranolol, judiciously timed, constitutes an outside-the-box yet highly promising treatment for anxiety disorders, and perhaps for posttraumatic stress disorder as well, Marieke Soeter, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The concept here is that the beta-blocker, when given with a brief therapist-led reactivation of a fear memory, blocks beta-adrenergic receptors in the brain so as to interfere with the specific proteins required for reconsolidation of that memory, thereby disrupting the reconsolidation process and neutralizing subsequent expression of that memory in its toxic form. In effect, timely administration of one dose of propranolol, a drug that readily crosses the blood/brain barrier, achieves pharmacologically induced amnesia regarding the learned fear, explained Dr. Soeter, a clinical psychologist at TNO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, an independent nonprofit translational research organization.

“It looks like permanent fear erasure. You can never say that something is erased, but we have not been able to get it back,” she said. “Propranolol achieves selective erasure: It targets the emotional component, but knowledge is intact. They know what happened, but they aren’t scared anymore. The fear association is affected, but not the innate fear response to a threat stimulus, so it doesn’t alter reactions to potentially dangerous situations, which is important. If there is a bomb, they still know to run away from it.”

This single-session therapy addressing what psychologists call fear memory reconsolidation is totally outside the box relative to contemporary psychotherapy for anxiety disorders, which typically entails gradual fear extinction learning requiring multiple treatment sessions. But contemporary psychotherapy for anxiety disorders leaves much room for improvement, given that up to 60% of patients experience relapse. That’s probably because the original fear memory remains intact and resurfaces at some point despite initial treatment success, according to Dr. Soeter.

Nearly 2 decades ago, other investigators showed in animal studies that fear memories are not necessarily permanent. Rather, they are modifiable, and even erasable, during the vulnerable period that occurs when the memories are reactivated and become labile.

Later, Dr. Soeter – then at the University of Amsterdam – and her colleagues demonstrated the same phenomenon using Pavlovian fear-conditioning techniques involving pictures and electric shocks in healthy human volunteers. They showed that a dose of propranolol given before memory reactivation blocked the fear response, while nadolol, a beta-blocker that does not cross the blood/brain barrier, did not.

However, since the fear memories they could ethically induce in the psychology laboratory are far less intense than those experienced by patients with anxiety disorders, the researchers next conducted a randomized, double-blind clinical trial in 45 individuals with arachnophobia. Fifteen received 40 mg of propranolol after spending 2 minutes in proximity to a large tarantula, 15 got placebo, and another 15 received propranolol without exposure to a tarantula. One week later, all patients who received propranolol with spider exposure were able to approach and actually pet the tarantula. Pharmacologic disruption of reconsolidation and storage of their fear memory had turned avoidance behavior into approach behavior. This benefit was maintained for at least a year after the brief treatment session (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Dec 15;78[12]:880-6).

“Interestingly, there was no direct effect of propranolol on spider beliefs. Therefore, do we need treatment that targets the cognitive level? These findings challenge one of the fundamental tenets of cognitive-behavioral therapy that emphasizes changes in cognition as central to behavioral modification,” Dr. Soeter said.

Most recently, she and a coinvestigator have been working to pin down the precise conditions under which memory reconsolidation can be targeted to extinguish fear memories. They have shown in a 30-subject study that the process is both time- and sleep-dependent. The propranolol must be given within roughly an hour before to 1 hour after therapeutic reactivation of the fear memory to be effective. And sleep is an absolute necessity: When subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after memory reactivation and administration of propranolol earlier on the same day, with no opportunity for sleep, there was no therapeutic effect: The disturbing fear memory was elicited. However, when subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after taking propranolol the previous day – that is, after a night’s sleep – the fear memory was gone (Nat Commun. 2018 Apr 3;9[1]:1316. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03659-1).

“Postretrieval amnesia requires sleep to happen. Sleep may be the final and necessary link to prevent the process of reconsolidation,” Dr. Soeter said. It’s still unclear, however, how much sleep is required. Perhaps a nap will turn out to be sufficient, she said.

Colleagues at the University of Amsterdam are now using single-dose propranolol-based therapy in patients with a wide range of phobias.

“The effects are pretty amazing,” Dr. Soeter said. “Everything is treatable. It’s almost too good to be true, but these are our findings.”

Based upon her favorable anecdotal experience in treating a Dutch military veteran with severe combat-related PTSD of 10 years’ duration which had proved resistant to multiple conventional and unconventional interventions, a pilot study of single-dose propranolol with traumatic memory reactivation is now being planned in patients with war-related PTSD.

“After one pill and a 20-minute session, this veteran with severe chronic PTSD has no more nightmares, insomnia, or alcohol problems, and he now travels the world,” she said.

Her research met with an enthusiastic reception from other speakers at the ECNP session on PTSD. Eric Vermetten, MD, PhD, welcomed the concept that pharmacologic therapy upon reexposure to fearful cues can impede the molecular and cellular cascade required to reestablish fearful memories. This also is the basis for the extremely encouraging, albeit preliminary, clinical data on ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, as well as 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for therapeutic manipulation of trauma memories.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Targeting reconsolidation of existing fear memories is worthy of looking into further,” declared Dr. Vermetten, professor of psychiatry at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and a military mental health researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

New thinking regarding pharmacotherapy for PTSD is sorely needed, he added. He endorsed a consensus statement by the PTSD Psychopharmacology Working Group that decried what was termed a crisis in pharmacotherapy of PTSD (Biol Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;82[7]:e51-e59. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Mar 14).

“We only have two [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications for PTSD – sertraline and paroxetine – and they were approved back in 2001,” Dr. Vermetten noted. “Research has stalled, and there is a void in new drug development.”

Dr. Soeter’s study of the time- and sleep-dependent nature of propranolol-induced amnesia was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, where she is employed.

bjancin@mdedge.com

BARCELONA – A single 40-mg dose of oral propranolol, judiciously timed, constitutes an outside-the-box yet highly promising treatment for anxiety disorders, and perhaps for posttraumatic stress disorder as well, Marieke Soeter, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The concept here is that the beta-blocker, when given with a brief therapist-led reactivation of a fear memory, blocks beta-adrenergic receptors in the brain so as to interfere with the specific proteins required for reconsolidation of that memory, thereby disrupting the reconsolidation process and neutralizing subsequent expression of that memory in its toxic form. In effect, timely administration of one dose of propranolol, a drug that readily crosses the blood/brain barrier, achieves pharmacologically induced amnesia regarding the learned fear, explained Dr. Soeter, a clinical psychologist at TNO, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, an independent nonprofit translational research organization.

“It looks like permanent fear erasure. You can never say that something is erased, but we have not been able to get it back,” she said. “Propranolol achieves selective erasure: It targets the emotional component, but knowledge is intact. They know what happened, but they aren’t scared anymore. The fear association is affected, but not the innate fear response to a threat stimulus, so it doesn’t alter reactions to potentially dangerous situations, which is important. If there is a bomb, they still know to run away from it.”

This single-session therapy addressing what psychologists call fear memory reconsolidation is totally outside the box relative to contemporary psychotherapy for anxiety disorders, which typically entails gradual fear extinction learning requiring multiple treatment sessions. But contemporary psychotherapy for anxiety disorders leaves much room for improvement, given that up to 60% of patients experience relapse. That’s probably because the original fear memory remains intact and resurfaces at some point despite initial treatment success, according to Dr. Soeter.

Nearly 2 decades ago, other investigators showed in animal studies that fear memories are not necessarily permanent. Rather, they are modifiable, and even erasable, during the vulnerable period that occurs when the memories are reactivated and become labile.

Later, Dr. Soeter – then at the University of Amsterdam – and her colleagues demonstrated the same phenomenon using Pavlovian fear-conditioning techniques involving pictures and electric shocks in healthy human volunteers. They showed that a dose of propranolol given before memory reactivation blocked the fear response, while nadolol, a beta-blocker that does not cross the blood/brain barrier, did not.

However, since the fear memories they could ethically induce in the psychology laboratory are far less intense than those experienced by patients with anxiety disorders, the researchers next conducted a randomized, double-blind clinical trial in 45 individuals with arachnophobia. Fifteen received 40 mg of propranolol after spending 2 minutes in proximity to a large tarantula, 15 got placebo, and another 15 received propranolol without exposure to a tarantula. One week later, all patients who received propranolol with spider exposure were able to approach and actually pet the tarantula. Pharmacologic disruption of reconsolidation and storage of their fear memory had turned avoidance behavior into approach behavior. This benefit was maintained for at least a year after the brief treatment session (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Dec 15;78[12]:880-6).

“Interestingly, there was no direct effect of propranolol on spider beliefs. Therefore, do we need treatment that targets the cognitive level? These findings challenge one of the fundamental tenets of cognitive-behavioral therapy that emphasizes changes in cognition as central to behavioral modification,” Dr. Soeter said.

Most recently, she and a coinvestigator have been working to pin down the precise conditions under which memory reconsolidation can be targeted to extinguish fear memories. They have shown in a 30-subject study that the process is both time- and sleep-dependent. The propranolol must be given within roughly an hour before to 1 hour after therapeutic reactivation of the fear memory to be effective. And sleep is an absolute necessity: When subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after memory reactivation and administration of propranolol earlier on the same day, with no opportunity for sleep, there was no therapeutic effect: The disturbing fear memory was elicited. However, when subjects were rechallenged 12 hours after taking propranolol the previous day – that is, after a night’s sleep – the fear memory was gone (Nat Commun. 2018 Apr 3;9[1]:1316. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03659-1).

“Postretrieval amnesia requires sleep to happen. Sleep may be the final and necessary link to prevent the process of reconsolidation,” Dr. Soeter said. It’s still unclear, however, how much sleep is required. Perhaps a nap will turn out to be sufficient, she said.

Colleagues at the University of Amsterdam are now using single-dose propranolol-based therapy in patients with a wide range of phobias.

“The effects are pretty amazing,” Dr. Soeter said. “Everything is treatable. It’s almost too good to be true, but these are our findings.”

Based upon her favorable anecdotal experience in treating a Dutch military veteran with severe combat-related PTSD of 10 years’ duration which had proved resistant to multiple conventional and unconventional interventions, a pilot study of single-dose propranolol with traumatic memory reactivation is now being planned in patients with war-related PTSD.

“After one pill and a 20-minute session, this veteran with severe chronic PTSD has no more nightmares, insomnia, or alcohol problems, and he now travels the world,” she said.

Her research met with an enthusiastic reception from other speakers at the ECNP session on PTSD. Eric Vermetten, MD, PhD, welcomed the concept that pharmacologic therapy upon reexposure to fearful cues can impede the molecular and cellular cascade required to reestablish fearful memories. This also is the basis for the extremely encouraging, albeit preliminary, clinical data on ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, as well as 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) for therapeutic manipulation of trauma memories.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Targeting reconsolidation of existing fear memories is worthy of looking into further,” declared Dr. Vermetten, professor of psychiatry at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and a military mental health researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

New thinking regarding pharmacotherapy for PTSD is sorely needed, he added. He endorsed a consensus statement by the PTSD Psychopharmacology Working Group that decried what was termed a crisis in pharmacotherapy of PTSD (Biol Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;82[7]:e51-e59. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Mar 14).

“We only have two [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications for PTSD – sertraline and paroxetine – and they were approved back in 2001,” Dr. Vermetten noted. “Research has stalled, and there is a void in new drug development.”

Dr. Soeter’s study of the time- and sleep-dependent nature of propranolol-induced amnesia was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, where she is employed.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – Two-thirds of psoriasis patients with stable low disease activity while on full-dose biologic therapy can successfully undergo biologic dose reduction with long-term maintenance of disease control and no adverse consequences, Juul van den Reek, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented the results of the CONDOR trial, the first-ever formal, randomized, controlled trial of tightly regulated dose reduction of biologics, compared with usual care standard-dose therapy. “Our current advice is we think you can try to reduce the dose because there are a lot of patients who benefit from this,” declared Dr. van den Reek, a dermatologist at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The advantages of this strategy are twofold: lower expenditures for this costly collection of medications and less exposure to any long-term, drug-related health risks, she noted.

CONDOR was a Dutch six-center, 12-month, open-label, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial including 111 patients. Participants had to have stable low disease activity as defined by both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 5 or less for at least 6 months while on standard-dose etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), or ustekinumab (Stelara) prior to enrollment. In fact, the average baseline PASI score was less than 2, with a DLQI of 0.

Participants were randomized to usual care – the customary approved dose of biologic therapy – or a drop down to 67% of that dose, achieved through prolongation of the dosing interval. If the reduced-dose patients kept their PASI and DLQI scores at 5 or less for 3 months straight, they dropped further to 50% of their original dose. However, patients who exceeded those thresholds were immediately returned to their previously effective dose.


The primary endpoint in this noninferiority trial was the difference in mean PASI scores between the dose-reduction and usual-care groups at 12 months. The prespecified margin for noninferiority was a difference of 0.5 PASI points. And that’s where the results get dicey: The mean difference turned out to be 1.1 PASI points in favor of usual care, meaning that, according to the study ground rules, dose reduction was not statistically noninferior. In hindsight, however, that 0.5-point margin was ill-considered and too narrowly defined.

“Within the chosen margins, the dose-reduction strategy seemed inferior. But what is the clinical relevance of a mean difference of 1.1 PASI points, when the accepted minimal clinically important difference is 3.2 points?” Dr. van den Reek observed.

There was no significant between-group difference in DLQI scores at 12 months. Nor did the two study arms differ in terms of the prespecified secondary endpoint of persistent disease flares as defined by a PASI or DLQI greater than 5 for 3 consecutive months: five patients in the reduced-dose group and three in the usual-care arm experienced such flares. There were no serious adverse events or other safety signals related to the intervention.

At 12 months, 50% of patients in the dose-reduction group were well maintained on 50% of their original approved-dose biologic and another 17% were doing well on 67% of their former dose.

Session chair Dedee Murrell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, noted that neither patients nor dermatologists were blinded as to treatment status in CONDOR. She then asked the question on everybody’s minds: Was there any loss of treatment efficacy when patients in the dose-reduction arm needed to resume higher-dose therapy?

No, Dr. van den Reek replied. She added that planned future CONDOR analyses include a cost-effectiveness determination as well as measurement of serum drug levels and identification of antidrug antibodies, information that might prove helpful in identifying an enriched population of patients most likely to respond favorably to biologic dose reduction. In addition, CONDOR-X, a long-term extension study, is ongoing in order to learn how patients on reduced-dose biologics fare after the 12-month mark.

The CONDOR trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Dr. van den Reek reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – Two-thirds of psoriasis patients with stable low disease activity while on full-dose biologic therapy can successfully undergo biologic dose reduction with long-term maintenance of disease control and no adverse consequences, Juul van den Reek, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented the results of the CONDOR trial, the first-ever formal, randomized, controlled trial of tightly regulated dose reduction of biologics, compared with usual care standard-dose therapy. “Our current advice is we think you can try to reduce the dose because there are a lot of patients who benefit from this,” declared Dr. van den Reek, a dermatologist at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The advantages of this strategy are twofold: lower expenditures for this costly collection of medications and less exposure to any long-term, drug-related health risks, she noted.

CONDOR was a Dutch six-center, 12-month, open-label, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial including 111 patients. Participants had to have stable low disease activity as defined by both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 5 or less for at least 6 months while on standard-dose etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), or ustekinumab (Stelara) prior to enrollment. In fact, the average baseline PASI score was less than 2, with a DLQI of 0.

Participants were randomized to usual care – the customary approved dose of biologic therapy – or a drop down to 67% of that dose, achieved through prolongation of the dosing interval. If the reduced-dose patients kept their PASI and DLQI scores at 5 or less for 3 months straight, they dropped further to 50% of their original dose. However, patients who exceeded those thresholds were immediately returned to their previously effective dose.


The primary endpoint in this noninferiority trial was the difference in mean PASI scores between the dose-reduction and usual-care groups at 12 months. The prespecified margin for noninferiority was a difference of 0.5 PASI points. And that’s where the results get dicey: The mean difference turned out to be 1.1 PASI points in favor of usual care, meaning that, according to the study ground rules, dose reduction was not statistically noninferior. In hindsight, however, that 0.5-point margin was ill-considered and too narrowly defined.

“Within the chosen margins, the dose-reduction strategy seemed inferior. But what is the clinical relevance of a mean difference of 1.1 PASI points, when the accepted minimal clinically important difference is 3.2 points?” Dr. van den Reek observed.

There was no significant between-group difference in DLQI scores at 12 months. Nor did the two study arms differ in terms of the prespecified secondary endpoint of persistent disease flares as defined by a PASI or DLQI greater than 5 for 3 consecutive months: five patients in the reduced-dose group and three in the usual-care arm experienced such flares. There were no serious adverse events or other safety signals related to the intervention.

At 12 months, 50% of patients in the dose-reduction group were well maintained on 50% of their original approved-dose biologic and another 17% were doing well on 67% of their former dose.

Session chair Dedee Murrell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, noted that neither patients nor dermatologists were blinded as to treatment status in CONDOR. She then asked the question on everybody’s minds: Was there any loss of treatment efficacy when patients in the dose-reduction arm needed to resume higher-dose therapy?

No, Dr. van den Reek replied. She added that planned future CONDOR analyses include a cost-effectiveness determination as well as measurement of serum drug levels and identification of antidrug antibodies, information that might prove helpful in identifying an enriched population of patients most likely to respond favorably to biologic dose reduction. In addition, CONDOR-X, a long-term extension study, is ongoing in order to learn how patients on reduced-dose biologics fare after the 12-month mark.

The CONDOR trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Dr. van den Reek reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

PARIS – Two-thirds of psoriasis patients with stable low disease activity while on full-dose biologic therapy can successfully undergo biologic dose reduction with long-term maintenance of disease control and no adverse consequences, Juul van den Reek, MD, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented the results of the CONDOR trial, the first-ever formal, randomized, controlled trial of tightly regulated dose reduction of biologics, compared with usual care standard-dose therapy. “Our current advice is we think you can try to reduce the dose because there are a lot of patients who benefit from this,” declared Dr. van den Reek, a dermatologist at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The advantages of this strategy are twofold: lower expenditures for this costly collection of medications and less exposure to any long-term, drug-related health risks, she noted.

CONDOR was a Dutch six-center, 12-month, open-label, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial including 111 patients. Participants had to have stable low disease activity as defined by both Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 5 or less for at least 6 months while on standard-dose etanercept (Enbrel), adalimumab (Humira), or ustekinumab (Stelara) prior to enrollment. In fact, the average baseline PASI score was less than 2, with a DLQI of 0.

Participants were randomized to usual care – the customary approved dose of biologic therapy – or a drop down to 67% of that dose, achieved through prolongation of the dosing interval. If the reduced-dose patients kept their PASI and DLQI scores at 5 or less for 3 months straight, they dropped further to 50% of their original dose. However, patients who exceeded those thresholds were immediately returned to their previously effective dose.


The primary endpoint in this noninferiority trial was the difference in mean PASI scores between the dose-reduction and usual-care groups at 12 months. The prespecified margin for noninferiority was a difference of 0.5 PASI points. And that’s where the results get dicey: The mean difference turned out to be 1.1 PASI points in favor of usual care, meaning that, according to the study ground rules, dose reduction was not statistically noninferior. In hindsight, however, that 0.5-point margin was ill-considered and too narrowly defined.

“Within the chosen margins, the dose-reduction strategy seemed inferior. But what is the clinical relevance of a mean difference of 1.1 PASI points, when the accepted minimal clinically important difference is 3.2 points?” Dr. van den Reek observed.

There was no significant between-group difference in DLQI scores at 12 months. Nor did the two study arms differ in terms of the prespecified secondary endpoint of persistent disease flares as defined by a PASI or DLQI greater than 5 for 3 consecutive months: five patients in the reduced-dose group and three in the usual-care arm experienced such flares. There were no serious adverse events or other safety signals related to the intervention.

At 12 months, 50% of patients in the dose-reduction group were well maintained on 50% of their original approved-dose biologic and another 17% were doing well on 67% of their former dose.

Session chair Dedee Murrell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, noted that neither patients nor dermatologists were blinded as to treatment status in CONDOR. She then asked the question on everybody’s minds: Was there any loss of treatment efficacy when patients in the dose-reduction arm needed to resume higher-dose therapy?

No, Dr. van den Reek replied. She added that planned future CONDOR analyses include a cost-effectiveness determination as well as measurement of serum drug levels and identification of antidrug antibodies, information that might prove helpful in identifying an enriched population of patients most likely to respond favorably to biologic dose reduction. In addition, CONDOR-X, a long-term extension study, is ongoing in order to learn how patients on reduced-dose biologics fare after the 12-month mark.

The CONDOR trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Dr. van den Reek reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

bjancin@mdedge.com

BARCELONA – The therapeutic setting for individual psychotherapy has shifted over the years from the analytic couch, with the therapist discretely tucked out of sight, to facing chairs, a similarly sedentary format. The next evolutionary development might be to plop a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder on an exercise treadmill and don a virtual reality helmet to engage in an interactive motion-assisted form of psychotherapy in which the therapist stands alongside the walking patient while providing guidance on processing traumatic memories, Eric Vermetten, MD, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He and his colleagues have developed an innovative approach to delivering trauma-focused psychotherapy. They call it Multimodular Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation (3MDR), or more informally, “walk and talk therapy,” explained Dr. Vermetten, professor of psychiatry at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and a military mental health researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

3MDR is a combination of personalized virtual reality using a headset, multisensory input using self-selected trauma-related pictures, and a dual-attention task borrowed from eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, with treadmill walking throughout the treatment session.

The goal is to facilitate retrieval of fear memories and then reconsolidate them in a benign form. 3MDR is designed to boost this process of memory retrieval and reconsolidation by creating a more totally immersive patient experience intended to enhance treatment engagement and overcome behavioral avoidance. Through virtual reality, the PTSD patient literally walks toward his personal fear-related images.

Dr. Vermetten and his coinvestigators came up with 3MDR as a treatment designed for military veterans with chronic, combat-related, treatment-resistant PTSD. The impetus was the evident need for new and better forms of psychotherapy for such patients. Even though an array of evidence-based psychotherapies are available as guideline-recommended first-line treatments for PTSD, individuals with combat-related PTSD have a notoriously low response rate to these interventions, presumably because of the intensity and repetitive nature of their traumatic experiences. Indeed, up to two-thirds of veterans with PTSD experience substantial residual symptoms post treatment such that they still meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

3MDR is an amped up form of exposure-based therapy in which patients walk through a personalized virtual reality installation toward self-chosen trauma-related pictures of their deployment. The investigators developed this intensely immersive type of psychotherapy because they believe avoidance and lack of emotional engagement figure prominently in the low success rate of established forms of psychotherapy in combat-related PTSD. The treadmill walking aspect is considered key because of the large body of research showing that walking entails cognitive-motor interactions that facilitate problem solving, the psychiatrist explained.

The investigators recently published a detailed description of the therapeutic rationale for 3MDR and the nuts and bolts of the novel therapy (Front Psychiatry. 2018 May 4;9:176. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00176). Early anecdotal experience has been positive. However, as cochair of the ECNP Traumatic Stress Network, Dr. Vermetten is acutely aware of the need to demonstrate efficacy in rigorous randomized controlled trials.

“This is a way psychotherapy can be shaped in the future. We’re collaborating with various centers across the globe now to see whether this is effective for treatment-resistant PTSD patients,” Dr. Vermetten said.

If those studies prove positive, it will be worthwhile to determine whether 3MDR also has a role as a first-line treatment for earlier-stage PTSD and for forms of the disorder unrelated to military combat, he added.

Funding for the project has been provided by the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

bjancin@mdedge.com

BARCELONA – The therapeutic setting for individual psychotherapy has shifted over the years from the analytic couch, with the therapist discretely tucked out of sight, to facing chairs, a similarly sedentary format. The next evolutionary development might be to plop a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder on an exercise treadmill and don a virtual reality helmet to engage in an interactive motion-assisted form of psychotherapy in which the therapist stands alongside the walking patient while providing guidance on processing traumatic memories, Eric Vermetten, MD, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He and his colleagues have developed an innovative approach to delivering trauma-focused psychotherapy. They call it Multimodular Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation (3MDR), or more informally, “walk and talk therapy,” explained Dr. Vermetten, professor of psychiatry at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and a military mental health researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

3MDR is a combination of personalized virtual reality using a headset, multisensory input using self-selected trauma-related pictures, and a dual-attention task borrowed from eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, with treadmill walking throughout the treatment session.

The goal is to facilitate retrieval of fear memories and then reconsolidate them in a benign form. 3MDR is designed to boost this process of memory retrieval and reconsolidation by creating a more totally immersive patient experience intended to enhance treatment engagement and overcome behavioral avoidance. Through virtual reality, the PTSD patient literally walks toward his personal fear-related images.

Dr. Vermetten and his coinvestigators came up with 3MDR as a treatment designed for military veterans with chronic, combat-related, treatment-resistant PTSD. The impetus was the evident need for new and better forms of psychotherapy for such patients. Even though an array of evidence-based psychotherapies are available as guideline-recommended first-line treatments for PTSD, individuals with combat-related PTSD have a notoriously low response rate to these interventions, presumably because of the intensity and repetitive nature of their traumatic experiences. Indeed, up to two-thirds of veterans with PTSD experience substantial residual symptoms post treatment such that they still meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

3MDR is an amped up form of exposure-based therapy in which patients walk through a personalized virtual reality installation toward self-chosen trauma-related pictures of their deployment. The investigators developed this intensely immersive type of psychotherapy because they believe avoidance and lack of emotional engagement figure prominently in the low success rate of established forms of psychotherapy in combat-related PTSD. The treadmill walking aspect is considered key because of the large body of research showing that walking entails cognitive-motor interactions that facilitate problem solving, the psychiatrist explained.

The investigators recently published a detailed description of the therapeutic rationale for 3MDR and the nuts and bolts of the novel therapy (Front Psychiatry. 2018 May 4;9:176. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00176). Early anecdotal experience has been positive. However, as cochair of the ECNP Traumatic Stress Network, Dr. Vermetten is acutely aware of the need to demonstrate efficacy in rigorous randomized controlled trials.

“This is a way psychotherapy can be shaped in the future. We’re collaborating with various centers across the globe now to see whether this is effective for treatment-resistant PTSD patients,” Dr. Vermetten said.

If those studies prove positive, it will be worthwhile to determine whether 3MDR also has a role as a first-line treatment for earlier-stage PTSD and for forms of the disorder unrelated to military combat, he added.

Funding for the project has been provided by the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

bjancin@mdedge.com

BARCELONA – The therapeutic setting for individual psychotherapy has shifted over the years from the analytic couch, with the therapist discretely tucked out of sight, to facing chairs, a similarly sedentary format. The next evolutionary development might be to plop a patient with posttraumatic stress disorder on an exercise treadmill and don a virtual reality helmet to engage in an interactive motion-assisted form of psychotherapy in which the therapist stands alongside the walking patient while providing guidance on processing traumatic memories, Eric Vermetten, MD, PhD, said at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He and his colleagues have developed an innovative approach to delivering trauma-focused psychotherapy. They call it Multimodular Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation (3MDR), or more informally, “walk and talk therapy,” explained Dr. Vermetten, professor of psychiatry at Leiden (the Netherlands) University and a military mental health researcher for the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

3MDR is a combination of personalized virtual reality using a headset, multisensory input using self-selected trauma-related pictures, and a dual-attention task borrowed from eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy, with treadmill walking throughout the treatment session.

The goal is to facilitate retrieval of fear memories and then reconsolidate them in a benign form. 3MDR is designed to boost this process of memory retrieval and reconsolidation by creating a more totally immersive patient experience intended to enhance treatment engagement and overcome behavioral avoidance. Through virtual reality, the PTSD patient literally walks toward his personal fear-related images.

Dr. Vermetten and his coinvestigators came up with 3MDR as a treatment designed for military veterans with chronic, combat-related, treatment-resistant PTSD. The impetus was the evident need for new and better forms of psychotherapy for such patients. Even though an array of evidence-based psychotherapies are available as guideline-recommended first-line treatments for PTSD, individuals with combat-related PTSD have a notoriously low response rate to these interventions, presumably because of the intensity and repetitive nature of their traumatic experiences. Indeed, up to two-thirds of veterans with PTSD experience substantial residual symptoms post treatment such that they still meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

3MDR is an amped up form of exposure-based therapy in which patients walk through a personalized virtual reality installation toward self-chosen trauma-related pictures of their deployment. The investigators developed this intensely immersive type of psychotherapy because they believe avoidance and lack of emotional engagement figure prominently in the low success rate of established forms of psychotherapy in combat-related PTSD. The treadmill walking aspect is considered key because of the large body of research showing that walking entails cognitive-motor interactions that facilitate problem solving, the psychiatrist explained.

The investigators recently published a detailed description of the therapeutic rationale for 3MDR and the nuts and bolts of the novel therapy (Front Psychiatry. 2018 May 4;9:176. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00176). Early anecdotal experience has been positive. However, as cochair of the ECNP Traumatic Stress Network, Dr. Vermetten is acutely aware of the need to demonstrate efficacy in rigorous randomized controlled trials.

“This is a way psychotherapy can be shaped in the future. We’re collaborating with various centers across the globe now to see whether this is effective for treatment-resistant PTSD patients,” Dr. Vermetten said.

If those studies prove positive, it will be worthwhile to determine whether 3MDR also has a role as a first-line treatment for earlier-stage PTSD and for forms of the disorder unrelated to military combat, he added.

Funding for the project has been provided by the Dutch Ministry of Defense.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – Firibastat, a first-in-class oral antihypertensive drug, proved safe, effective, and well-tolerated in NEW-HOPE, a phase 2b clinical trial focused on an understudied and underserved patient population composed largely of overweight or obese, high-risk, hypertensive racial minorities,

Firibastat is the first brain aminopeptidase A inhibitor. It selectively and specifically inhibits conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin III, which exerts tonic stimulation over blood pressure. Decreased angiotensin III means less release of vasopressin, reduced sympathetic nervous system activity, and increased baroreflex activity, all of which add up to lower blood pressure, Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, explained at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

NEW-HOPE (Novel Evaluation With QGC001 in Hypertensive Overweight Patients of Multiple Ethnic origins) was an open-label multicenter study including 254 middle-aged or older hypertensive patients. Two-thirds were obese, the rest overweight. Participants had a mean body mass index of 33 kg/m² and a baseline automated office blood pressure (AOBP) of 153.9/91.5 mm Hg. A total of 46% were women, and 38% were black. Indeed, blacks and other minorities made up 54% of the NEW-HOPE population.

“Minority populations in many of the clinical trials in hypertension have been underrepresented,” observed Dr. Ferdinand, professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans.

After a 2-week washout period, all patients were placed on firibastat at 250 mg b.i.d. for 2 weeks. If at that point their AOBP was more than 140/90 mm Hg they were bumped up to 500 mg b.i.d. Hydrochlorothiazide at 25 mg/day could be added 1 month into the trial if a patient’s systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or more or their diastolic blood pressure was at least 100 mm Hg. Of note, 85% of patients were able to remain on firibastat monotherapy throughout the study.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic AOBP at 8 weeks. By week 8, the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) had fallen by 9.7 mm Hg from a baseline of 153.9, which in hypertension circles is deemed a clinically meaningful improvement. Mean diastolic AOBP fell from 91.5 to 87.2 mm Hg, for a 4.3–mm Hg reduction.

“The diastolic number was smaller, but remember, this was a middle-aged and older population, and SBP is the most important endpoint in patients of that age, not just in clinical trials but in terms of its effects on morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

A word about the rigorous AOBP protocol used in NEW-HOPE: It was similar to that used in the landmark SPRINT trial. Patients were required to rest seated with back support in a quiet room with no talking for 5 minutes. Then six measurements were taken at 1-minute intervals, with patients’ legs uncrossed and feet on the floor the whole time. The first measurement was discarded, and the next five were averaged.

“This correlates very well with daytime ambulatory blood pressure, which is the gold standard,” the cardiologist noted.

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, systolic AOBP was reduced significantly more in obese than in overweight patients. Black patients averaged a 10.5–mm Hg decrease, nonblacks a 4.1–mm Hg reduction. But black patients also averaged a 2.0 kg/m² higher body mass index.

“ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have been shown to be less efficacious in black patients. Firibastat, however, had similar effects in both black and nonblack patients. And this is probably one of the main take-away points of the study: This is a drug based on the phenotype of obesity and increased blood pressure, and the drug had efficacy regardless of self-identified race,” the cardiologist continued.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache in 4% of patients and skin reactions in 3%. There were no cases of angioedema. The only serious adverse event was one case of erythema multiforme. There were no clinically meaningful changes in any laboratory parameters.

Based upon these encouraging results, a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial is being planned in patients with difficult-to-treat or resistant hypertension. Dr. Ferdinand sees firibastat as being particularly useful as part of a two-drug treatment strategy, probably with the addition of a calcium channel blocker or potent diuretic, since “two drugs is the way to go in resistant hypertension.”

Audience members called the study “very hopeful,” but wondered about the absence of a placebo control arm. Reservations were also voiced about the need for twice-daily dosing of firibastat because it’s well established that adherence drops off when an antihypertensive agent has to be taken more than once daily.

Dr. Ferdinand said the lack of a placebo arm in NEW-HOPE was endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration because of ethical concerns surrounding use of a placebo in a high-risk population such as this. Obesity is known to increase the risk of resistant hypertension fivefold. Obesity is more common in blacks and Hispanics, with a prevalence of 47%, than in whites, where the prevalence is 38%.

As for the b.i.d. dosing, Quantum Genomics, the company that sponsored NEW-HOPE, is developing a sustained-release, once-daily formulation of firibastat that’s better suited for clinical practice, he added.

NEW-HOPE was carried out in collaboration with the Association of Black Cardiologists. Dr. Ferdinand reported serving as a consultant to Quantum Genomics and a handful of other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – Firibastat, a first-in-class oral antihypertensive drug, proved safe, effective, and well-tolerated in NEW-HOPE, a phase 2b clinical trial focused on an understudied and underserved patient population composed largely of overweight or obese, high-risk, hypertensive racial minorities,

Firibastat is the first brain aminopeptidase A inhibitor. It selectively and specifically inhibits conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin III, which exerts tonic stimulation over blood pressure. Decreased angiotensin III means less release of vasopressin, reduced sympathetic nervous system activity, and increased baroreflex activity, all of which add up to lower blood pressure, Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, explained at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

NEW-HOPE (Novel Evaluation With QGC001 in Hypertensive Overweight Patients of Multiple Ethnic origins) was an open-label multicenter study including 254 middle-aged or older hypertensive patients. Two-thirds were obese, the rest overweight. Participants had a mean body mass index of 33 kg/m² and a baseline automated office blood pressure (AOBP) of 153.9/91.5 mm Hg. A total of 46% were women, and 38% were black. Indeed, blacks and other minorities made up 54% of the NEW-HOPE population.

“Minority populations in many of the clinical trials in hypertension have been underrepresented,” observed Dr. Ferdinand, professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans.

After a 2-week washout period, all patients were placed on firibastat at 250 mg b.i.d. for 2 weeks. If at that point their AOBP was more than 140/90 mm Hg they were bumped up to 500 mg b.i.d. Hydrochlorothiazide at 25 mg/day could be added 1 month into the trial if a patient’s systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or more or their diastolic blood pressure was at least 100 mm Hg. Of note, 85% of patients were able to remain on firibastat monotherapy throughout the study.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic AOBP at 8 weeks. By week 8, the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) had fallen by 9.7 mm Hg from a baseline of 153.9, which in hypertension circles is deemed a clinically meaningful improvement. Mean diastolic AOBP fell from 91.5 to 87.2 mm Hg, for a 4.3–mm Hg reduction.

“The diastolic number was smaller, but remember, this was a middle-aged and older population, and SBP is the most important endpoint in patients of that age, not just in clinical trials but in terms of its effects on morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

A word about the rigorous AOBP protocol used in NEW-HOPE: It was similar to that used in the landmark SPRINT trial. Patients were required to rest seated with back support in a quiet room with no talking for 5 minutes. Then six measurements were taken at 1-minute intervals, with patients’ legs uncrossed and feet on the floor the whole time. The first measurement was discarded, and the next five were averaged.

“This correlates very well with daytime ambulatory blood pressure, which is the gold standard,” the cardiologist noted.

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, systolic AOBP was reduced significantly more in obese than in overweight patients. Black patients averaged a 10.5–mm Hg decrease, nonblacks a 4.1–mm Hg reduction. But black patients also averaged a 2.0 kg/m² higher body mass index.

“ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have been shown to be less efficacious in black patients. Firibastat, however, had similar effects in both black and nonblack patients. And this is probably one of the main take-away points of the study: This is a drug based on the phenotype of obesity and increased blood pressure, and the drug had efficacy regardless of self-identified race,” the cardiologist continued.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache in 4% of patients and skin reactions in 3%. There were no cases of angioedema. The only serious adverse event was one case of erythema multiforme. There were no clinically meaningful changes in any laboratory parameters.

Based upon these encouraging results, a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial is being planned in patients with difficult-to-treat or resistant hypertension. Dr. Ferdinand sees firibastat as being particularly useful as part of a two-drug treatment strategy, probably with the addition of a calcium channel blocker or potent diuretic, since “two drugs is the way to go in resistant hypertension.”

Audience members called the study “very hopeful,” but wondered about the absence of a placebo control arm. Reservations were also voiced about the need for twice-daily dosing of firibastat because it’s well established that adherence drops off when an antihypertensive agent has to be taken more than once daily.

Dr. Ferdinand said the lack of a placebo arm in NEW-HOPE was endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration because of ethical concerns surrounding use of a placebo in a high-risk population such as this. Obesity is known to increase the risk of resistant hypertension fivefold. Obesity is more common in blacks and Hispanics, with a prevalence of 47%, than in whites, where the prevalence is 38%.

As for the b.i.d. dosing, Quantum Genomics, the company that sponsored NEW-HOPE, is developing a sustained-release, once-daily formulation of firibastat that’s better suited for clinical practice, he added.

NEW-HOPE was carried out in collaboration with the Association of Black Cardiologists. Dr. Ferdinand reported serving as a consultant to Quantum Genomics and a handful of other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – Firibastat, a first-in-class oral antihypertensive drug, proved safe, effective, and well-tolerated in NEW-HOPE, a phase 2b clinical trial focused on an understudied and underserved patient population composed largely of overweight or obese, high-risk, hypertensive racial minorities,

Firibastat is the first brain aminopeptidase A inhibitor. It selectively and specifically inhibits conversion of angiotensin II to angiotensin III, which exerts tonic stimulation over blood pressure. Decreased angiotensin III means less release of vasopressin, reduced sympathetic nervous system activity, and increased baroreflex activity, all of which add up to lower blood pressure, Keith C. Ferdinand, MD, explained at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

NEW-HOPE (Novel Evaluation With QGC001 in Hypertensive Overweight Patients of Multiple Ethnic origins) was an open-label multicenter study including 254 middle-aged or older hypertensive patients. Two-thirds were obese, the rest overweight. Participants had a mean body mass index of 33 kg/m² and a baseline automated office blood pressure (AOBP) of 153.9/91.5 mm Hg. A total of 46% were women, and 38% were black. Indeed, blacks and other minorities made up 54% of the NEW-HOPE population.

“Minority populations in many of the clinical trials in hypertension have been underrepresented,” observed Dr. Ferdinand, professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans.

After a 2-week washout period, all patients were placed on firibastat at 250 mg b.i.d. for 2 weeks. If at that point their AOBP was more than 140/90 mm Hg they were bumped up to 500 mg b.i.d. Hydrochlorothiazide at 25 mg/day could be added 1 month into the trial if a patient’s systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or more or their diastolic blood pressure was at least 100 mm Hg. Of note, 85% of patients were able to remain on firibastat monotherapy throughout the study.

The primary endpoint was change from baseline in systolic AOBP at 8 weeks. By week 8, the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) had fallen by 9.7 mm Hg from a baseline of 153.9, which in hypertension circles is deemed a clinically meaningful improvement. Mean diastolic AOBP fell from 91.5 to 87.2 mm Hg, for a 4.3–mm Hg reduction.

“The diastolic number was smaller, but remember, this was a middle-aged and older population, and SBP is the most important endpoint in patients of that age, not just in clinical trials but in terms of its effects on morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Ferdinand said.

A word about the rigorous AOBP protocol used in NEW-HOPE: It was similar to that used in the landmark SPRINT trial. Patients were required to rest seated with back support in a quiet room with no talking for 5 minutes. Then six measurements were taken at 1-minute intervals, with patients’ legs uncrossed and feet on the floor the whole time. The first measurement was discarded, and the next five were averaged.

“This correlates very well with daytime ambulatory blood pressure, which is the gold standard,” the cardiologist noted.

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, systolic AOBP was reduced significantly more in obese than in overweight patients. Black patients averaged a 10.5–mm Hg decrease, nonblacks a 4.1–mm Hg reduction. But black patients also averaged a 2.0 kg/m² higher body mass index.

“ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers have been shown to be less efficacious in black patients. Firibastat, however, had similar effects in both black and nonblack patients. And this is probably one of the main take-away points of the study: This is a drug based on the phenotype of obesity and increased blood pressure, and the drug had efficacy regardless of self-identified race,” the cardiologist continued.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache in 4% of patients and skin reactions in 3%. There were no cases of angioedema. The only serious adverse event was one case of erythema multiforme. There were no clinically meaningful changes in any laboratory parameters.

Based upon these encouraging results, a pivotal phase 3 clinical trial is being planned in patients with difficult-to-treat or resistant hypertension. Dr. Ferdinand sees firibastat as being particularly useful as part of a two-drug treatment strategy, probably with the addition of a calcium channel blocker or potent diuretic, since “two drugs is the way to go in resistant hypertension.”

Audience members called the study “very hopeful,” but wondered about the absence of a placebo control arm. Reservations were also voiced about the need for twice-daily dosing of firibastat because it’s well established that adherence drops off when an antihypertensive agent has to be taken more than once daily.

Dr. Ferdinand said the lack of a placebo arm in NEW-HOPE was endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration because of ethical concerns surrounding use of a placebo in a high-risk population such as this. Obesity is known to increase the risk of resistant hypertension fivefold. Obesity is more common in blacks and Hispanics, with a prevalence of 47%, than in whites, where the prevalence is 38%.

As for the b.i.d. dosing, Quantum Genomics, the company that sponsored NEW-HOPE, is developing a sustained-release, once-daily formulation of firibastat that’s better suited for clinical practice, he added.

NEW-HOPE was carried out in collaboration with the Association of Black Cardiologists. Dr. Ferdinand reported serving as a consultant to Quantum Genomics and a handful of other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – A measure of clarity regarding how the emerging class of oral Janus kinase inhibitors might fit into clinical practice for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis was supplied by a fusillade of five consecutive strongly positive phase 3 trials presented during a single session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The session featured three randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trials of the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) upadacitinib in more than 3,200 participants in three different clinical scenarios, known as the SELECT-COMPARE, SELECT-EARLY, and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trials, along with two Japanese phase 3 trials of peficitinib, a JAK1 and -3 inhibitor, in a total of more than 1,000 rheumatoid arthritis patients.
 

Upadacitinib

SELECT-COMPARE: Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, presented the findings of this trial in which 1,629 patients with active RA inadequately responsive to methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1 to 26 weeks of once-daily oral upadacitinib at 15 mg, placebo, or 40 mg of adalimumab (Humira) by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, all on top of background stable doses of methotrexate.

Upadacitinib, a JAK1 selective agent, was the clear winner, trouncing placebo, unsurprisingly, but more importantly also proving statistically superior to adalimumab – the current go-to drug in patients with an insufficient response to methotrexate – in terms of across-the-board improvement in RA signs and symptoms, quality-of-life measures, and physical function. This result, coupled with the similarly positive findings of a trial of oral baricitinib (Olumiant) versus adalimumab in inadequate responders to methotrexate alone, and a third positive trial of oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz), have altered Dr. Fleischmann’s treatment philosophy.

“I think that these studies have changed the treatment paradigm. And I think if access – that is, costs – were the same, given a choice, if it were me, I would actually use a JAK inhibitor before I would use adalimumab, based on the results of these multiple studies in different populations,” said Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The two coprimary endpoints in SELECT-COMPARE were the week 12 American College of Rheumatology–defined 20% level of response (ACR 20) and a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). The ACR 20 response rate was 70.5% with upadacitinib 15 mg, significantly better than the 63% rate with adalimumab and the 36.4% rate with placebo. Similarly, the ACR 50 rate at 12 weeks was 45.2% with upadacitinib versus 29.1% with adalimumab, and ACR 70 rates were 24.9% and 13.5%, respectively.

“These are not small differences,” the rheumatologist observed. “That ACR 70 rate is almost doubled with upadacitinib.”

The rate for DAS28-CRP less than 2.6 at week 12 was 28.7% with upadacitinib, compared with 18% with adalimumab.

Improvements in pain scores and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were also significantly greater with the JAKi, both at weeks 12 and 26.

As in the other two SELECT phase 3 trials presented at the meeting, the response to upadacitinib was quick: The JAKi was superior to placebo on the efficacy endpoints by week 2, and superior to adalimumab by week 4.

The week-12 Boolean remission rate, a stringent measure, was 9.8% in the upadacitinib group, more than twice the 4% rate with adalimumab. At week 26, the rates were 18.1% and 9.8%, respectively, a finding Dr. Fleischmann deemed “very impressive.”

Radiographic disease progression as measured by change in modified total Sharp score (mTSS) at week 26 was 0.92 with placebo, 0.24 with upadacitinib, and slightly better at 0.1 with adalimumab. Adalimumab was also slightly better than baricitinib by this metric in a separate randomized trial. But that’s not a deal breaker for Dr. Fleischmann.

“It’s a 0.1–Sharp unit difference over 6 months. So by the time a patient would be able to tell the difference clinically, if my calculation is correct they’ll be 712 years old,” he quipped.

Serious infection rates through 26 weeks were similar in the upadacitinib and adalimumab study arms, with both being higher than placebo. Venous thromboembolism occurred in one patient on placebo, two on upadacitinib, and three on adalimumab.

Peficitinib

Yoshiya Tanaka, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of internal medicine at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health in Kitakyushu, Japan, presented the findings of two pivotal phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials of peficitinib at 100 or 150 mg once daily in 1,025 Asian patients with active RA insufficiently responsive to methotrexate or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Both studies were positive for all the key endpoints. Based upon these results, the drug’s developer, Astellas Pharma, has filed for Japanese regulatory approval of peficitinib.

Which oral JAKi to use?

Some audience members, numbed by the parade of positive results, asked the investigators for guidance as to which JAKi to choose, and when.

“The upadacitinib dataset mirrors the two approved oral JAKis. The data all look very similar,” said Stanley B. Cohen, MD, codirector of the division of rheumatology at Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and a former ACR president. “All the JAKis are effective; the safety profiles are similar. Can you help clinicians know what differentiates them? Why should I choose one or the other?”

Dr. Tanaka replied that, although much gets made of the between-agent differences in selectivity for JAK1, 2, and/or 3 inhibition, “In the human body we cannot see much difference in safety and efficacy.”

If indeed such differences exist, head-to-head randomized trials will be required to ferret them out, noted Dr. Fleischmann.

Dr. Smolen indicated rheumatologists ought to rejoice in the looming prospect of a fistful of JAKis to choose from.

“I always wondered which beta-blocker to use, and I always wondered which cholesterol-lowering drug to use, and which NSAID to use – and interestingly enough, one NSAID will work in you but not in me, and another will work in me but not in you. So I think we should be pleased that we will have several oral JAKis to choose from,” he said.

Dr. Fleischmann got in the final word: “The answer to your question is the way we always answer it in the office. It’s access. Whichever one has the best access for the patient is the one you would select.”

The SELECT trials were sponsored by AbbVie, and all the upadacitinib investigators reported receiving research funds from and serving as paid consultants to that company and numerous others. Dr. Tanaka reported receiving research grants from and serving as a paid consultant to Astellas Pharma and close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – A measure of clarity regarding how the emerging class of oral Janus kinase inhibitors might fit into clinical practice for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis was supplied by a fusillade of five consecutive strongly positive phase 3 trials presented during a single session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The session featured three randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trials of the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) upadacitinib in more than 3,200 participants in three different clinical scenarios, known as the SELECT-COMPARE, SELECT-EARLY, and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trials, along with two Japanese phase 3 trials of peficitinib, a JAK1 and -3 inhibitor, in a total of more than 1,000 rheumatoid arthritis patients.
 

Upadacitinib

SELECT-COMPARE: Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, presented the findings of this trial in which 1,629 patients with active RA inadequately responsive to methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1 to 26 weeks of once-daily oral upadacitinib at 15 mg, placebo, or 40 mg of adalimumab (Humira) by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, all on top of background stable doses of methotrexate.

Upadacitinib, a JAK1 selective agent, was the clear winner, trouncing placebo, unsurprisingly, but more importantly also proving statistically superior to adalimumab – the current go-to drug in patients with an insufficient response to methotrexate – in terms of across-the-board improvement in RA signs and symptoms, quality-of-life measures, and physical function. This result, coupled with the similarly positive findings of a trial of oral baricitinib (Olumiant) versus adalimumab in inadequate responders to methotrexate alone, and a third positive trial of oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz), have altered Dr. Fleischmann’s treatment philosophy.

“I think that these studies have changed the treatment paradigm. And I think if access – that is, costs – were the same, given a choice, if it were me, I would actually use a JAK inhibitor before I would use adalimumab, based on the results of these multiple studies in different populations,” said Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The two coprimary endpoints in SELECT-COMPARE were the week 12 American College of Rheumatology–defined 20% level of response (ACR 20) and a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). The ACR 20 response rate was 70.5% with upadacitinib 15 mg, significantly better than the 63% rate with adalimumab and the 36.4% rate with placebo. Similarly, the ACR 50 rate at 12 weeks was 45.2% with upadacitinib versus 29.1% with adalimumab, and ACR 70 rates were 24.9% and 13.5%, respectively.

“These are not small differences,” the rheumatologist observed. “That ACR 70 rate is almost doubled with upadacitinib.”

The rate for DAS28-CRP less than 2.6 at week 12 was 28.7% with upadacitinib, compared with 18% with adalimumab.

Improvements in pain scores and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were also significantly greater with the JAKi, both at weeks 12 and 26.

As in the other two SELECT phase 3 trials presented at the meeting, the response to upadacitinib was quick: The JAKi was superior to placebo on the efficacy endpoints by week 2, and superior to adalimumab by week 4.

The week-12 Boolean remission rate, a stringent measure, was 9.8% in the upadacitinib group, more than twice the 4% rate with adalimumab. At week 26, the rates were 18.1% and 9.8%, respectively, a finding Dr. Fleischmann deemed “very impressive.”

Radiographic disease progression as measured by change in modified total Sharp score (mTSS) at week 26 was 0.92 with placebo, 0.24 with upadacitinib, and slightly better at 0.1 with adalimumab. Adalimumab was also slightly better than baricitinib by this metric in a separate randomized trial. But that’s not a deal breaker for Dr. Fleischmann.

“It’s a 0.1–Sharp unit difference over 6 months. So by the time a patient would be able to tell the difference clinically, if my calculation is correct they’ll be 712 years old,” he quipped.

Serious infection rates through 26 weeks were similar in the upadacitinib and adalimumab study arms, with both being higher than placebo. Venous thromboembolism occurred in one patient on placebo, two on upadacitinib, and three on adalimumab.

Peficitinib

Yoshiya Tanaka, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of internal medicine at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health in Kitakyushu, Japan, presented the findings of two pivotal phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials of peficitinib at 100 or 150 mg once daily in 1,025 Asian patients with active RA insufficiently responsive to methotrexate or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Both studies were positive for all the key endpoints. Based upon these results, the drug’s developer, Astellas Pharma, has filed for Japanese regulatory approval of peficitinib.

Which oral JAKi to use?

Some audience members, numbed by the parade of positive results, asked the investigators for guidance as to which JAKi to choose, and when.

“The upadacitinib dataset mirrors the two approved oral JAKis. The data all look very similar,” said Stanley B. Cohen, MD, codirector of the division of rheumatology at Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and a former ACR president. “All the JAKis are effective; the safety profiles are similar. Can you help clinicians know what differentiates them? Why should I choose one or the other?”

Dr. Tanaka replied that, although much gets made of the between-agent differences in selectivity for JAK1, 2, and/or 3 inhibition, “In the human body we cannot see much difference in safety and efficacy.”

If indeed such differences exist, head-to-head randomized trials will be required to ferret them out, noted Dr. Fleischmann.

Dr. Smolen indicated rheumatologists ought to rejoice in the looming prospect of a fistful of JAKis to choose from.

“I always wondered which beta-blocker to use, and I always wondered which cholesterol-lowering drug to use, and which NSAID to use – and interestingly enough, one NSAID will work in you but not in me, and another will work in me but not in you. So I think we should be pleased that we will have several oral JAKis to choose from,” he said.

Dr. Fleischmann got in the final word: “The answer to your question is the way we always answer it in the office. It’s access. Whichever one has the best access for the patient is the one you would select.”

The SELECT trials were sponsored by AbbVie, and all the upadacitinib investigators reported receiving research funds from and serving as paid consultants to that company and numerous others. Dr. Tanaka reported receiving research grants from and serving as a paid consultant to Astellas Pharma and close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – A measure of clarity regarding how the emerging class of oral Janus kinase inhibitors might fit into clinical practice for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis was supplied by a fusillade of five consecutive strongly positive phase 3 trials presented during a single session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

The session featured three randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trials of the Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) upadacitinib in more than 3,200 participants in three different clinical scenarios, known as the SELECT-COMPARE, SELECT-EARLY, and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY trials, along with two Japanese phase 3 trials of peficitinib, a JAK1 and -3 inhibitor, in a total of more than 1,000 rheumatoid arthritis patients.
 

Upadacitinib

SELECT-COMPARE: Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, presented the findings of this trial in which 1,629 patients with active RA inadequately responsive to methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1 to 26 weeks of once-daily oral upadacitinib at 15 mg, placebo, or 40 mg of adalimumab (Humira) by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, all on top of background stable doses of methotrexate.

Upadacitinib, a JAK1 selective agent, was the clear winner, trouncing placebo, unsurprisingly, but more importantly also proving statistically superior to adalimumab – the current go-to drug in patients with an insufficient response to methotrexate – in terms of across-the-board improvement in RA signs and symptoms, quality-of-life measures, and physical function. This result, coupled with the similarly positive findings of a trial of oral baricitinib (Olumiant) versus adalimumab in inadequate responders to methotrexate alone, and a third positive trial of oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz), have altered Dr. Fleischmann’s treatment philosophy.

“I think that these studies have changed the treatment paradigm. And I think if access – that is, costs – were the same, given a choice, if it were me, I would actually use a JAK inhibitor before I would use adalimumab, based on the results of these multiple studies in different populations,” said Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

The two coprimary endpoints in SELECT-COMPARE were the week 12 American College of Rheumatology–defined 20% level of response (ACR 20) and a 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). The ACR 20 response rate was 70.5% with upadacitinib 15 mg, significantly better than the 63% rate with adalimumab and the 36.4% rate with placebo. Similarly, the ACR 50 rate at 12 weeks was 45.2% with upadacitinib versus 29.1% with adalimumab, and ACR 70 rates were 24.9% and 13.5%, respectively.

“These are not small differences,” the rheumatologist observed. “That ACR 70 rate is almost doubled with upadacitinib.”

The rate for DAS28-CRP less than 2.6 at week 12 was 28.7% with upadacitinib, compared with 18% with adalimumab.

Improvements in pain scores and the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were also significantly greater with the JAKi, both at weeks 12 and 26.

As in the other two SELECT phase 3 trials presented at the meeting, the response to upadacitinib was quick: The JAKi was superior to placebo on the efficacy endpoints by week 2, and superior to adalimumab by week 4.

The week-12 Boolean remission rate, a stringent measure, was 9.8% in the upadacitinib group, more than twice the 4% rate with adalimumab. At week 26, the rates were 18.1% and 9.8%, respectively, a finding Dr. Fleischmann deemed “very impressive.”

Radiographic disease progression as measured by change in modified total Sharp score (mTSS) at week 26 was 0.92 with placebo, 0.24 with upadacitinib, and slightly better at 0.1 with adalimumab. Adalimumab was also slightly better than baricitinib by this metric in a separate randomized trial. But that’s not a deal breaker for Dr. Fleischmann.

“It’s a 0.1–Sharp unit difference over 6 months. So by the time a patient would be able to tell the difference clinically, if my calculation is correct they’ll be 712 years old,” he quipped.

Serious infection rates through 26 weeks were similar in the upadacitinib and adalimumab study arms, with both being higher than placebo. Venous thromboembolism occurred in one patient on placebo, two on upadacitinib, and three on adalimumab.

Peficitinib

Yoshiya Tanaka, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the department of internal medicine at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health in Kitakyushu, Japan, presented the findings of two pivotal phase 3, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials of peficitinib at 100 or 150 mg once daily in 1,025 Asian patients with active RA insufficiently responsive to methotrexate or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Both studies were positive for all the key endpoints. Based upon these results, the drug’s developer, Astellas Pharma, has filed for Japanese regulatory approval of peficitinib.

Which oral JAKi to use?

Some audience members, numbed by the parade of positive results, asked the investigators for guidance as to which JAKi to choose, and when.

“The upadacitinib dataset mirrors the two approved oral JAKis. The data all look very similar,” said Stanley B. Cohen, MD, codirector of the division of rheumatology at Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and a former ACR president. “All the JAKis are effective; the safety profiles are similar. Can you help clinicians know what differentiates them? Why should I choose one or the other?”

Dr. Tanaka replied that, although much gets made of the between-agent differences in selectivity for JAK1, 2, and/or 3 inhibition, “In the human body we cannot see much difference in safety and efficacy.”

If indeed such differences exist, head-to-head randomized trials will be required to ferret them out, noted Dr. Fleischmann.

Dr. Smolen indicated rheumatologists ought to rejoice in the looming prospect of a fistful of JAKis to choose from.

“I always wondered which beta-blocker to use, and I always wondered which cholesterol-lowering drug to use, and which NSAID to use – and interestingly enough, one NSAID will work in you but not in me, and another will work in me but not in you. So I think we should be pleased that we will have several oral JAKis to choose from,” he said.

Dr. Fleischmann got in the final word: “The answer to your question is the way we always answer it in the office. It’s access. Whichever one has the best access for the patient is the one you would select.”

The SELECT trials were sponsored by AbbVie, and all the upadacitinib investigators reported receiving research funds from and serving as paid consultants to that company and numerous others. Dr. Tanaka reported receiving research grants from and serving as a paid consultant to Astellas Pharma and close to a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

CHICAGO – A specific type of natural killer cell has for the first time been implicated as playing a key contributory role in the development of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This natural killer cell interacts with the CD94/NKG2A receptor, part of a system believed to have been in place in humans for more than 90 million years.

“We believe there is a possible role for the innate immune system in the development of psoriatic arthritis and its distinction from psoriasis,” Vinod Chandran, MD, PhD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Dr. Chandran, of the University of Toronto, presented an analysis of a discovery cohort comprising 1,155 patients with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis of greater than 10 years duration, 664 rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis patients, and 3,118 controls, all participants in the International Psoriasis and Arthritis Research Team program. These findings were then independently confirmed in a separate University of Toronto replication cohort of 659 psoriasis patients, 1,177 psoriatic arthritis patients of European ancestry, and 1,096 controls.

By way of background, the rheumatologist explained that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are known to differ in terms of their genetic architecture, the biggest difference being in the HLA class I region, where HLA-C predominates in psoriasis and HLA-B in psoriatic arthritis. These structurally unrelated forms of HLA class I are known to educate natural killer cells and shape their function. Dr. Chandran and his coinvestigators were eager to shed new light on the mechanisms by which this leads to rheumatic disease.

Humans can be divided into three groups based upon whether they are HLA-B21 methionine/methionine (M/M), HLA-B21 M/threonine (T), or HLA-B21 T/T. The B21 M types educate CD94/NKG2A-positive natural killer cells by delivering functional peptides to the CD94/NKG2A receptor, while the B21 T/T version does not.

In the discovery cohort, individuals with psoriatic arthritis turned out to be 36% more likely to be HLA-B21 M/M or HLA-B21 M/T than were the psoriasis patients, while the psoriasis patients were 22% less likely to be B21 M–positive than controls. These relationships were confirmed in the replication cohort, where psoriatic arthritis patients were 40% more likely to be B21 M–positive than psoriasis patients, and psoriasis patients were 18% less likely to be B21 M–positive than controls, with all of these differences being statistically significant.

While this is translational science, Dr. Chandran explained that it has important clinical implications. He and his coinvestigators are developing a genetic marker panel to differentiate psoriatic arthritis from psoriasis, as are other research groups. And the Toronto investigators are now convinced that including HLA-B21 M/M and HLA-B21 M/T in their evolving genetic test is worthwhile in terms of boosting the test’s predictive power. The 36%-40% increased risk of psoriatic arthritis associated with B21 M–positivity isn’t sufficiently large for it to serve as a standalone test, but when the genetic test panel is finalized and the investigators can evaluate its positive and negative predictive value, it will be clear that the B21 M component will provide added value, he predicted.

Because psoriatic arthritis can take on a variety of disparate forms clinically, Dr. Chandran and his coworkers believe their genetic test will prove most useful for nonrheumatologists, especially dermatologists and primary care physicians.

He reported having no relevant financial relationships regarding this study, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Krembil Foundation, and the Arthritis Foundation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chandran V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 2787.

CHICAGO – A specific type of natural killer cell has for the first time been implicated as playing a key contributory role in the development of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This natural killer cell interacts with the CD94/NKG2A receptor, part of a system believed to have been in place in humans for more than 90 million years.

“We believe there is a possible role for the innate immune system in the development of psoriatic arthritis and its distinction from psoriasis,” Vinod Chandran, MD, PhD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Dr. Chandran, of the University of Toronto, presented an analysis of a discovery cohort comprising 1,155 patients with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis of greater than 10 years duration, 664 rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis patients, and 3,118 controls, all participants in the International Psoriasis and Arthritis Research Team program. These findings were then independently confirmed in a separate University of Toronto replication cohort of 659 psoriasis patients, 1,177 psoriatic arthritis patients of European ancestry, and 1,096 controls.

By way of background, the rheumatologist explained that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are known to differ in terms of their genetic architecture, the biggest difference being in the HLA class I region, where HLA-C predominates in psoriasis and HLA-B in psoriatic arthritis. These structurally unrelated forms of HLA class I are known to educate natural killer cells and shape their function. Dr. Chandran and his coinvestigators were eager to shed new light on the mechanisms by which this leads to rheumatic disease.

Humans can be divided into three groups based upon whether they are HLA-B21 methionine/methionine (M/M), HLA-B21 M/threonine (T), or HLA-B21 T/T. The B21 M types educate CD94/NKG2A-positive natural killer cells by delivering functional peptides to the CD94/NKG2A receptor, while the B21 T/T version does not.

In the discovery cohort, individuals with psoriatic arthritis turned out to be 36% more likely to be HLA-B21 M/M or HLA-B21 M/T than were the psoriasis patients, while the psoriasis patients were 22% less likely to be B21 M–positive than controls. These relationships were confirmed in the replication cohort, where psoriatic arthritis patients were 40% more likely to be B21 M–positive than psoriasis patients, and psoriasis patients were 18% less likely to be B21 M–positive than controls, with all of these differences being statistically significant.

While this is translational science, Dr. Chandran explained that it has important clinical implications. He and his coinvestigators are developing a genetic marker panel to differentiate psoriatic arthritis from psoriasis, as are other research groups. And the Toronto investigators are now convinced that including HLA-B21 M/M and HLA-B21 M/T in their evolving genetic test is worthwhile in terms of boosting the test’s predictive power. The 36%-40% increased risk of psoriatic arthritis associated with B21 M–positivity isn’t sufficiently large for it to serve as a standalone test, but when the genetic test panel is finalized and the investigators can evaluate its positive and negative predictive value, it will be clear that the B21 M component will provide added value, he predicted.

Because psoriatic arthritis can take on a variety of disparate forms clinically, Dr. Chandran and his coworkers believe their genetic test will prove most useful for nonrheumatologists, especially dermatologists and primary care physicians.

He reported having no relevant financial relationships regarding this study, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Krembil Foundation, and the Arthritis Foundation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chandran V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 2787.

CHICAGO – A specific type of natural killer cell has for the first time been implicated as playing a key contributory role in the development of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This natural killer cell interacts with the CD94/NKG2A receptor, part of a system believed to have been in place in humans for more than 90 million years.

“We believe there is a possible role for the innate immune system in the development of psoriatic arthritis and its distinction from psoriasis,” Vinod Chandran, MD, PhD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Dr. Chandran, of the University of Toronto, presented an analysis of a discovery cohort comprising 1,155 patients with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis of greater than 10 years duration, 664 rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis patients, and 3,118 controls, all participants in the International Psoriasis and Arthritis Research Team program. These findings were then independently confirmed in a separate University of Toronto replication cohort of 659 psoriasis patients, 1,177 psoriatic arthritis patients of European ancestry, and 1,096 controls.

By way of background, the rheumatologist explained that psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are known to differ in terms of their genetic architecture, the biggest difference being in the HLA class I region, where HLA-C predominates in psoriasis and HLA-B in psoriatic arthritis. These structurally unrelated forms of HLA class I are known to educate natural killer cells and shape their function. Dr. Chandran and his coinvestigators were eager to shed new light on the mechanisms by which this leads to rheumatic disease.

Humans can be divided into three groups based upon whether they are HLA-B21 methionine/methionine (M/M), HLA-B21 M/threonine (T), or HLA-B21 T/T. The B21 M types educate CD94/NKG2A-positive natural killer cells by delivering functional peptides to the CD94/NKG2A receptor, while the B21 T/T version does not.

In the discovery cohort, individuals with psoriatic arthritis turned out to be 36% more likely to be HLA-B21 M/M or HLA-B21 M/T than were the psoriasis patients, while the psoriasis patients were 22% less likely to be B21 M–positive than controls. These relationships were confirmed in the replication cohort, where psoriatic arthritis patients were 40% more likely to be B21 M–positive than psoriasis patients, and psoriasis patients were 18% less likely to be B21 M–positive than controls, with all of these differences being statistically significant.

While this is translational science, Dr. Chandran explained that it has important clinical implications. He and his coinvestigators are developing a genetic marker panel to differentiate psoriatic arthritis from psoriasis, as are other research groups. And the Toronto investigators are now convinced that including HLA-B21 M/M and HLA-B21 M/T in their evolving genetic test is worthwhile in terms of boosting the test’s predictive power. The 36%-40% increased risk of psoriatic arthritis associated with B21 M–positivity isn’t sufficiently large for it to serve as a standalone test, but when the genetic test panel is finalized and the investigators can evaluate its positive and negative predictive value, it will be clear that the B21 M component will provide added value, he predicted.

Because psoriatic arthritis can take on a variety of disparate forms clinically, Dr. Chandran and his coworkers believe their genetic test will prove most useful for nonrheumatologists, especially dermatologists and primary care physicians.

He reported having no relevant financial relationships regarding this study, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Krembil Foundation, and the Arthritis Foundation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Chandran V et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 2787.

CHICAGO – Canakinumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1 beta, was associated with an eye-popping 45% relative risk reduction in the rate of total knee or hip replacement in a prespecified secondary analysis of the landmark CANTOS trial, Matthias Schieker, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

For the broader composite endpoint of all osteoarthritis-related adverse events, including new-onset OA or worsening of symptoms in those with OA at baseline, the relative risk reduction was 23% in patients randomized to canakinumab rather than placebo. For CANTOS participants who already had OA at baseline, the relative risk reduction was 31%, according to Dr. Schieker, who is head of the joint, bone, and tendon disease group at the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research in Basel, Switzerland, and professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Munich.

CANTOS (the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study) was designed as a massive phase 3 secondary cardiovascular prevention trial. It included 10,061 patients with a history of acute MI and an elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level of 2 mg/L or more who were randomized double blind to subcutaneous canakinumab at 50, 150, or 300 mg or placebo given once every 3 months. During a median 3.7 years of prospective follow-up, patients in the 150-mg group had a highly significant 17% reduction relative to placebo in the risk of the composite efficacy endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina resulting in urgent coronary revascularization (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).

Since this result was achieved with a 39% reduction in CRP, compared with placebo, and involved no lipid-lowering effect, it was hailed in the cardiology world as the long-awaited proof of the inflammatory hypothesis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

CANTOS has proved to be the gift that keeps on giving. Secondary analyses of the study data have found statistically significant reductions in the incidence of and mortality caused by lung cancer in the coronary disease patients on canakinumab, as well as a decreased risk of developing gout. Moreover, the CANTOS investigators, well aware that there are no approved therapies to prevent disease progression in OA, had the foresight to prospectively collect data on OA-related symptoms and outcomes.

At baseline, 15.6% of CANTOS participants had a history of OA. During follow-up, patients in that subgroup had a 3.4% incidence of total knee replacement or total hip replacement if they had been assigned to canakinumab, compared with a 6.3% incidence if they got placebo. In the full 10,000-plus CANTOS cohort, the arthroplasty rates were 0.8% and 1.4%, respectively.

The combined rate of OA-related adverse events in the full CANTOS cohort was 5.4% with canakinumab and 7.0% with placebo. In the subgroup with baseline OA, the rates were 14.5% and 20.8%.

Canakinumab is marketed by Novartis as Ilaris and is already approved for cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes, familial Mediterranean fever, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and other rare autoimmune inflammatory diseases. Based upon the positive primary outcomes of the CANTOS trial, Novartis applied to the Food and Drug Administration for a major expanded indication of the IL-1B inhibitor for cardiovascular risk reduction. However, the regulatory agency has turned down that bid.

Although the CANTOS OA-related outcomes data caused quite a stir at the meeting, Dr. Schieker said in an interview that the impressive findings didn’t really come as a surprise to him.

“I think everyone in the field has assumed that IL-1 plays a role in OA. That idea has been around for quite a long time, but until now no effects could be shown in OA. We were lucky to have an enriched population with elevated hsCRP that was so large and followed for so long that we could finally show these relative risk reductions,” he explained.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schieker M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 445.

CHICAGO – Canakinumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1 beta, was associated with an eye-popping 45% relative risk reduction in the rate of total knee or hip replacement in a prespecified secondary analysis of the landmark CANTOS trial, Matthias Schieker, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

For the broader composite endpoint of all osteoarthritis-related adverse events, including new-onset OA or worsening of symptoms in those with OA at baseline, the relative risk reduction was 23% in patients randomized to canakinumab rather than placebo. For CANTOS participants who already had OA at baseline, the relative risk reduction was 31%, according to Dr. Schieker, who is head of the joint, bone, and tendon disease group at the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research in Basel, Switzerland, and professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Munich.

CANTOS (the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study) was designed as a massive phase 3 secondary cardiovascular prevention trial. It included 10,061 patients with a history of acute MI and an elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level of 2 mg/L or more who were randomized double blind to subcutaneous canakinumab at 50, 150, or 300 mg or placebo given once every 3 months. During a median 3.7 years of prospective follow-up, patients in the 150-mg group had a highly significant 17% reduction relative to placebo in the risk of the composite efficacy endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina resulting in urgent coronary revascularization (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).

Since this result was achieved with a 39% reduction in CRP, compared with placebo, and involved no lipid-lowering effect, it was hailed in the cardiology world as the long-awaited proof of the inflammatory hypothesis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

CANTOS has proved to be the gift that keeps on giving. Secondary analyses of the study data have found statistically significant reductions in the incidence of and mortality caused by lung cancer in the coronary disease patients on canakinumab, as well as a decreased risk of developing gout. Moreover, the CANTOS investigators, well aware that there are no approved therapies to prevent disease progression in OA, had the foresight to prospectively collect data on OA-related symptoms and outcomes.

At baseline, 15.6% of CANTOS participants had a history of OA. During follow-up, patients in that subgroup had a 3.4% incidence of total knee replacement or total hip replacement if they had been assigned to canakinumab, compared with a 6.3% incidence if they got placebo. In the full 10,000-plus CANTOS cohort, the arthroplasty rates were 0.8% and 1.4%, respectively.

The combined rate of OA-related adverse events in the full CANTOS cohort was 5.4% with canakinumab and 7.0% with placebo. In the subgroup with baseline OA, the rates were 14.5% and 20.8%.

Canakinumab is marketed by Novartis as Ilaris and is already approved for cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes, familial Mediterranean fever, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and other rare autoimmune inflammatory diseases. Based upon the positive primary outcomes of the CANTOS trial, Novartis applied to the Food and Drug Administration for a major expanded indication of the IL-1B inhibitor for cardiovascular risk reduction. However, the regulatory agency has turned down that bid.

Although the CANTOS OA-related outcomes data caused quite a stir at the meeting, Dr. Schieker said in an interview that the impressive findings didn’t really come as a surprise to him.

“I think everyone in the field has assumed that IL-1 plays a role in OA. That idea has been around for quite a long time, but until now no effects could be shown in OA. We were lucky to have an enriched population with elevated hsCRP that was so large and followed for so long that we could finally show these relative risk reductions,” he explained.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schieker M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 445.

CHICAGO – Canakinumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-1 beta, was associated with an eye-popping 45% relative risk reduction in the rate of total knee or hip replacement in a prespecified secondary analysis of the landmark CANTOS trial, Matthias Schieker, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

For the broader composite endpoint of all osteoarthritis-related adverse events, including new-onset OA or worsening of symptoms in those with OA at baseline, the relative risk reduction was 23% in patients randomized to canakinumab rather than placebo. For CANTOS participants who already had OA at baseline, the relative risk reduction was 31%, according to Dr. Schieker, who is head of the joint, bone, and tendon disease group at the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research in Basel, Switzerland, and professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Munich.

CANTOS (the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study) was designed as a massive phase 3 secondary cardiovascular prevention trial. It included 10,061 patients with a history of acute MI and an elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level of 2 mg/L or more who were randomized double blind to subcutaneous canakinumab at 50, 150, or 300 mg or placebo given once every 3 months. During a median 3.7 years of prospective follow-up, patients in the 150-mg group had a highly significant 17% reduction relative to placebo in the risk of the composite efficacy endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina resulting in urgent coronary revascularization (N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377[12]:1119-31).

Since this result was achieved with a 39% reduction in CRP, compared with placebo, and involved no lipid-lowering effect, it was hailed in the cardiology world as the long-awaited proof of the inflammatory hypothesis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

CANTOS has proved to be the gift that keeps on giving. Secondary analyses of the study data have found statistically significant reductions in the incidence of and mortality caused by lung cancer in the coronary disease patients on canakinumab, as well as a decreased risk of developing gout. Moreover, the CANTOS investigators, well aware that there are no approved therapies to prevent disease progression in OA, had the foresight to prospectively collect data on OA-related symptoms and outcomes.

At baseline, 15.6% of CANTOS participants had a history of OA. During follow-up, patients in that subgroup had a 3.4% incidence of total knee replacement or total hip replacement if they had been assigned to canakinumab, compared with a 6.3% incidence if they got placebo. In the full 10,000-plus CANTOS cohort, the arthroplasty rates were 0.8% and 1.4%, respectively.

The combined rate of OA-related adverse events in the full CANTOS cohort was 5.4% with canakinumab and 7.0% with placebo. In the subgroup with baseline OA, the rates were 14.5% and 20.8%.

Canakinumab is marketed by Novartis as Ilaris and is already approved for cryopyrin-associated periodic syndromes, familial Mediterranean fever, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and other rare autoimmune inflammatory diseases. Based upon the positive primary outcomes of the CANTOS trial, Novartis applied to the Food and Drug Administration for a major expanded indication of the IL-1B inhibitor for cardiovascular risk reduction. However, the regulatory agency has turned down that bid.

Although the CANTOS OA-related outcomes data caused quite a stir at the meeting, Dr. Schieker said in an interview that the impressive findings didn’t really come as a surprise to him.

“I think everyone in the field has assumed that IL-1 plays a role in OA. That idea has been around for quite a long time, but until now no effects could be shown in OA. We were lucky to have an enriched population with elevated hsCRP that was so large and followed for so long that we could finally show these relative risk reductions,” he explained.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schieker M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 445.

CHICAGO – Patients who meet the criteria for interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features are more than 14 times more likely to progress to a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease than are those with idiopathic interstitial lung disease who don’t meet the criteria, Michail Alevizos, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We think this is a very novel finding. It means that patients with IPAF [interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features] should be followed and evaluated by rheumatologists over time,” said Dr. Alevizos, who was a rheumatology fellow at Columbia University in New York at the time of the study.

Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) is a term proposed by a joint task force of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society in 2015 to describe patients diagnosed with idiopathic interstitial lung disease who possess some features of autoimmunity without meeting formal criteria for a full-blown rheumatic disease. The designation requires the presence of interstitial lung disease by imaging or biopsy, exclusion of all other etiologies, and at least one feature from within at least two of three domains: clinical, serologic, and morphologic.

The clinical domain includes Raynaud’s, palmar telangiectasias, distal digital tip ulceration, and other entities. The serologic criteria include any of a dozen possible autoantibodies. And the morphologic domain encompasses a radiographic or histopathologic pattern suggestive of organizing pneumonia, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or other specific abnormalities (Eur Respir J. 2015 Oct;46[4]:976-87).

The natural history of IPAF is largely unknown, which was the impetus for Dr. Alevizos’ study. He presented a single-center, retrospective study of 697 patients diagnosed with interstitial lung disease, 174 of whom had idiopathic interstitial lung disease at baseline. Fifty of the 174 met criteria for IPAF, while the other 124 did not.

During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 8 of the 50 patients with IPAF (16%) were diagnosed with a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, as were 2 of the 124 non-IPAF group (1.6%). The average time to diagnosis of a formal rheumatic disease was 3.4 years in the IPAF group and 7.8 years in the comparator arm. The rheumatic diseases that arose in the IPAF group consisted of two cases of rheumatoid arthritis, two of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, three of systemic sclerosis, and one of polymyositis.

In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, patients with IPAF were 14.1 times more likely to progress to an autoimmune rheumatic disease.

In terms of distinguishing features, the IPAF patients were on average 10 years younger at baseline and more commonly female. On high-resolution CT, 82% of them displayed a pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, compared with only 15% of the non-IPAF group. Also, 96% of the IPAF patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, as were 52% of the non-IPAF group. Usual interstitial pneumonia was evident on high-resolution CT in 18% of the IPAF group, compared with 75% of patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia without IPAF.

Dr. Alevizos said he hopes to validate these findings in a prospective study. He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Alevizos M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 1305.

CHICAGO – Patients who meet the criteria for interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features are more than 14 times more likely to progress to a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease than are those with idiopathic interstitial lung disease who don’t meet the criteria, Michail Alevizos, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We think this is a very novel finding. It means that patients with IPAF [interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features] should be followed and evaluated by rheumatologists over time,” said Dr. Alevizos, who was a rheumatology fellow at Columbia University in New York at the time of the study.

Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) is a term proposed by a joint task force of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society in 2015 to describe patients diagnosed with idiopathic interstitial lung disease who possess some features of autoimmunity without meeting formal criteria for a full-blown rheumatic disease. The designation requires the presence of interstitial lung disease by imaging or biopsy, exclusion of all other etiologies, and at least one feature from within at least two of three domains: clinical, serologic, and morphologic.

The clinical domain includes Raynaud’s, palmar telangiectasias, distal digital tip ulceration, and other entities. The serologic criteria include any of a dozen possible autoantibodies. And the morphologic domain encompasses a radiographic or histopathologic pattern suggestive of organizing pneumonia, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or other specific abnormalities (Eur Respir J. 2015 Oct;46[4]:976-87).

The natural history of IPAF is largely unknown, which was the impetus for Dr. Alevizos’ study. He presented a single-center, retrospective study of 697 patients diagnosed with interstitial lung disease, 174 of whom had idiopathic interstitial lung disease at baseline. Fifty of the 174 met criteria for IPAF, while the other 124 did not.

During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 8 of the 50 patients with IPAF (16%) were diagnosed with a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, as were 2 of the 124 non-IPAF group (1.6%). The average time to diagnosis of a formal rheumatic disease was 3.4 years in the IPAF group and 7.8 years in the comparator arm. The rheumatic diseases that arose in the IPAF group consisted of two cases of rheumatoid arthritis, two of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, three of systemic sclerosis, and one of polymyositis.

In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, patients with IPAF were 14.1 times more likely to progress to an autoimmune rheumatic disease.

In terms of distinguishing features, the IPAF patients were on average 10 years younger at baseline and more commonly female. On high-resolution CT, 82% of them displayed a pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, compared with only 15% of the non-IPAF group. Also, 96% of the IPAF patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, as were 52% of the non-IPAF group. Usual interstitial pneumonia was evident on high-resolution CT in 18% of the IPAF group, compared with 75% of patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia without IPAF.

Dr. Alevizos said he hopes to validate these findings in a prospective study. He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Alevizos M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 1305.

CHICAGO – Patients who meet the criteria for interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features are more than 14 times more likely to progress to a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease than are those with idiopathic interstitial lung disease who don’t meet the criteria, Michail Alevizos, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“We think this is a very novel finding. It means that patients with IPAF [interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features] should be followed and evaluated by rheumatologists over time,” said Dr. Alevizos, who was a rheumatology fellow at Columbia University in New York at the time of the study.

Interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) is a term proposed by a joint task force of the American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society in 2015 to describe patients diagnosed with idiopathic interstitial lung disease who possess some features of autoimmunity without meeting formal criteria for a full-blown rheumatic disease. The designation requires the presence of interstitial lung disease by imaging or biopsy, exclusion of all other etiologies, and at least one feature from within at least two of three domains: clinical, serologic, and morphologic.

The clinical domain includes Raynaud’s, palmar telangiectasias, distal digital tip ulceration, and other entities. The serologic criteria include any of a dozen possible autoantibodies. And the morphologic domain encompasses a radiographic or histopathologic pattern suggestive of organizing pneumonia, nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, or other specific abnormalities (Eur Respir J. 2015 Oct;46[4]:976-87).

The natural history of IPAF is largely unknown, which was the impetus for Dr. Alevizos’ study. He presented a single-center, retrospective study of 697 patients diagnosed with interstitial lung disease, 174 of whom had idiopathic interstitial lung disease at baseline. Fifty of the 174 met criteria for IPAF, while the other 124 did not.

During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 8 of the 50 patients with IPAF (16%) were diagnosed with a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, as were 2 of the 124 non-IPAF group (1.6%). The average time to diagnosis of a formal rheumatic disease was 3.4 years in the IPAF group and 7.8 years in the comparator arm. The rheumatic diseases that arose in the IPAF group consisted of two cases of rheumatoid arthritis, two of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis, three of systemic sclerosis, and one of polymyositis.

In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, patients with IPAF were 14.1 times more likely to progress to an autoimmune rheumatic disease.

In terms of distinguishing features, the IPAF patients were on average 10 years younger at baseline and more commonly female. On high-resolution CT, 82% of them displayed a pattern of nonspecific interstitial pneumonia, compared with only 15% of the non-IPAF group. Also, 96% of the IPAF patients were on immunosuppressive therapy at baseline, as were 52% of the non-IPAF group. Usual interstitial pneumonia was evident on high-resolution CT in 18% of the IPAF group, compared with 75% of patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia without IPAF.

Dr. Alevizos said he hopes to validate these findings in a prospective study. He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Alevizos M et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10), Abstract 1305.

CHICAGO – Chronic use of proton pump inhibitors is widespread among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, posing a distinct danger of unwelcome drug-drug interactions affecting the rate and extent of absorption of selected oral antirheumatic drugs, Nicholas Jones, PharmD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of particular interest is the fact that the oral Janus kinase inhibitors – a drug class that’s a red hot research topic now in rheumatology – are weak bases whose absorption can be greatly affected by pH-dependent solubility, according to Dr. Jones, a research scientist at Genentech in South San Francisco.

Other commonly prescribed oral antirheumatic drugs whose solubility is affected by the level of stomach acidity include azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and sulfasalazine. On the other hand, solubility is not pH-dependent for apremilast, chloroquine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Dr. Jones presented a retrospective analysis of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) utilization patterns during 2012-2015 in 77,034 rheumatoid arthritis and 2,224 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients included in the national Truven Health MarketScan database.

Thirty-five percent of the rheumatoid arthritis patients and 34% of SLE patients were chronic users of PPIs as defined by continuous daily use for more than a month during 2 years of follow-up. Among the SLE cohort, chronic utilization of PPIs increased stepwise with disease severity: The rate was 27% in those with mild SLE, 39% with moderate disease, and 54% among those with severe SLE.

Omeprazole was far and away the most widely used PPI. It was the one used by 53% of the RA patients who were chronic users of PPIs, followed by pantoprazole at 20% and esomeprazole at 15%. The PPI distribution pattern closely followed suit in SLE patients who were chronic users.

Esomeprazole is 60% more potent and pantoprazole 77% less potent than omeprazole, Dr. Jones noted. The pharmacokinetic clearance routes for omeprazole and esomeprazole involve CYP2C19 and CYP3A4. Clearance of pantoprazole is by those two mechanisms as well as by CYP2D6 and CYP2C9.

Dr. Jones recommended that physicians who treat rheumatoid arthritis and SLE patients be sure to ask them about concomitant use of PPIs, including OTC formulations. And clinical trialists need to be attentive to PPI usage in potential study participants.

Genentech sponsored the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Keebler D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract 228

CHICAGO – Chronic use of proton pump inhibitors is widespread among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, posing a distinct danger of unwelcome drug-drug interactions affecting the rate and extent of absorption of selected oral antirheumatic drugs, Nicholas Jones, PharmD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of particular interest is the fact that the oral Janus kinase inhibitors – a drug class that’s a red hot research topic now in rheumatology – are weak bases whose absorption can be greatly affected by pH-dependent solubility, according to Dr. Jones, a research scientist at Genentech in South San Francisco.

Other commonly prescribed oral antirheumatic drugs whose solubility is affected by the level of stomach acidity include azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and sulfasalazine. On the other hand, solubility is not pH-dependent for apremilast, chloroquine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Dr. Jones presented a retrospective analysis of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) utilization patterns during 2012-2015 in 77,034 rheumatoid arthritis and 2,224 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients included in the national Truven Health MarketScan database.

Thirty-five percent of the rheumatoid arthritis patients and 34% of SLE patients were chronic users of PPIs as defined by continuous daily use for more than a month during 2 years of follow-up. Among the SLE cohort, chronic utilization of PPIs increased stepwise with disease severity: The rate was 27% in those with mild SLE, 39% with moderate disease, and 54% among those with severe SLE.

Omeprazole was far and away the most widely used PPI. It was the one used by 53% of the RA patients who were chronic users of PPIs, followed by pantoprazole at 20% and esomeprazole at 15%. The PPI distribution pattern closely followed suit in SLE patients who were chronic users.

Esomeprazole is 60% more potent and pantoprazole 77% less potent than omeprazole, Dr. Jones noted. The pharmacokinetic clearance routes for omeprazole and esomeprazole involve CYP2C19 and CYP3A4. Clearance of pantoprazole is by those two mechanisms as well as by CYP2D6 and CYP2C9.

Dr. Jones recommended that physicians who treat rheumatoid arthritis and SLE patients be sure to ask them about concomitant use of PPIs, including OTC formulations. And clinical trialists need to be attentive to PPI usage in potential study participants.

Genentech sponsored the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Keebler D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract 228

CHICAGO – Chronic use of proton pump inhibitors is widespread among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, posing a distinct danger of unwelcome drug-drug interactions affecting the rate and extent of absorption of selected oral antirheumatic drugs, Nicholas Jones, PharmD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of particular interest is the fact that the oral Janus kinase inhibitors – a drug class that’s a red hot research topic now in rheumatology – are weak bases whose absorption can be greatly affected by pH-dependent solubility, according to Dr. Jones, a research scientist at Genentech in South San Francisco.

Other commonly prescribed oral antirheumatic drugs whose solubility is affected by the level of stomach acidity include azathioprine, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and sulfasalazine. On the other hand, solubility is not pH-dependent for apremilast, chloroquine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, hydroxychloroquine, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Dr. Jones presented a retrospective analysis of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) utilization patterns during 2012-2015 in 77,034 rheumatoid arthritis and 2,224 systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients included in the national Truven Health MarketScan database.

Thirty-five percent of the rheumatoid arthritis patients and 34% of SLE patients were chronic users of PPIs as defined by continuous daily use for more than a month during 2 years of follow-up. Among the SLE cohort, chronic utilization of PPIs increased stepwise with disease severity: The rate was 27% in those with mild SLE, 39% with moderate disease, and 54% among those with severe SLE.

Omeprazole was far and away the most widely used PPI. It was the one used by 53% of the RA patients who were chronic users of PPIs, followed by pantoprazole at 20% and esomeprazole at 15%. The PPI distribution pattern closely followed suit in SLE patients who were chronic users.

Esomeprazole is 60% more potent and pantoprazole 77% less potent than omeprazole, Dr. Jones noted. The pharmacokinetic clearance routes for omeprazole and esomeprazole involve CYP2C19 and CYP3A4. Clearance of pantoprazole is by those two mechanisms as well as by CYP2D6 and CYP2C9.

Dr. Jones recommended that physicians who treat rheumatoid arthritis and SLE patients be sure to ask them about concomitant use of PPIs, including OTC formulations. And clinical trialists need to be attentive to PPI usage in potential study participants.

Genentech sponsored the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Keebler D et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018;70(Suppl 10): Abstract 228