Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in adult moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: An update narrative literature review

Background: Adult atopic dermatitis (AD) is defined as a continuum of childhood AD or the development of the disease in adulthood, accounting for 7.7–59.7% of adult AD cases varying in severity and manifestations. The symptomatology of moderate-to-severe adult AD may significantly impact the overall health and quality of life of the patient. The “classic” topical treatments used in mild-to-moderate cases, such as emollients and topical corticosteroids, are usually not adequate to control the symptoms of most of the patients with moderate-to-severe disease. For many years these patients were managed with systemic corticosteroids and immunomodulators, leading to substantial side effects with questionable efficacy. The introduction of dupilumab, the first biologic agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in adult moderate-to-severe AD, has commenced a new era in the management of AD. This narrative literature review addresses the question of how patients with moderate-to-severe AD may achieve a recession or improvement in the overall progression of the disease with the use of dupilumab in both an efficient and safe way. Material and Methods: A search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted using the following combination of MeSH terms: “dupilumab” AND “atopic” (“dermatitis” OR “eczema”). The searches were limited to RCTs written in the English language published before January 25, 2021. The literature used included phase II and III RCTs examining the efficacy and/or safety of dupilumab compared to placebo or other treatments in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Moderate-to-severe AD was defined by an IGA score of 3 (moderate) or 4 (severe) and EASI 16 or higher at screening and baseline. Additionally, we searched the website clinicaltrials.gov for any unpublished or ongoing RCTs. The search was done independently by two authors in all databases and followed by the exclusion of duplicates. Results: Upon reviewing all randomized controlled trials, dupilumab was found to be an effective and safe option for managing adult moderate-to-severe AD with long-term therapeutic effects. Conclusion: The best results for maintaining long-term disease recession were achieved with the combination of dupilumab and topical corticosteroids.

The Efficacy of Sequential Biologic Agents in Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis after Failure of Initial DMARD and anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Therapy

Introduction/Objective: The efficacy of biologic therapy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been well-established but, in practice, a quarter of patients will either not respond to the first biologic agent or will suffer an adverse event requiring a switch to a different drug. While clinical guidelines exist to help guide therapy and previous studies have examined sequential use of anti-TNF agents, there is little data to inform a multiple switch strategy. Our aim was to measure the efficacy of multiple switches of biologic in severe refractory RA. Methods: We enrolled 111 patients whose therapy with one anti-TNF agent had failed in this open-label observational study. These patients were all treated with a second biologic agent and 27 ultimately required treatment with a third. The response to the therapy and disease activity were assessed at 6 and 12 months after each switch. Results: The remission rates at 6 months were lower than previously reported and the initiation of a second biologic agent resulted in significant improvement at 12 months, including DAS remission in 36% of patients. The response in those receiving a third biologic was less pronounced, as might be expected in this relatively treatment-refractory population. In this group, only patients treated with tocilizumab had maintained remission at one year. Conclusion: Patients who do not respond to an anti-TNF agent often benefit from being switched to a second, or even third, biologic. Importantly, it may take longer than expected to fully assess the effectiveness of a second or third agent in patients with refractory disease.

Use of biologic agents and methotrexate improves renal manifestation and outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis

Background and purpose We examined whether advances in treatment strategies from older disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to new biologic agents and methotrexate improved renal complications and outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We reviewed records of 156 patients with RA who underwent kidney biopsy at our institute between January 1990 and December 2019. All patients were assigned to one of three periods: period 1, 1990–1999 (n = 48); period 2, 2000–2009(n = 57); period 3, 2010–2019 (n = 51). Results Membranous nephropathy, nephrosclerosis, AA-amyloidosis, and IgA nephropathy were the four major renal manifestations of RA. AA-amyloidosis was diagnosed by kidney biopsy in 21 patients: period 1, 7 patients (15%); period 2, 10 patients (18%); and period 3, 4 patients (8%). The 4 patients in period 3 were in the years 2010–2014, and no new case of AA-amyloidosis was recorded from 2015 to 2019. In all 21 of the patients with AA-amyloidosis, neither a biologic agent nor methotrexate was administered. Fifteen of the 21 patients required dialysis, and 13 died in periods 1–3 because of amyloid-related cardiac dysfunction less than 2 years after the initiation of dialysis. Two of them are doing well using biologic agent despite dialysis. The remaining three patients who received a biologic agent or methotrexate does not progress to end-stage renal failure. In addition, the other renal complications showing progression to dialysis also decreased over time. Conclusion Advances in treatment strategies have improved renal outcome and reduced mortality in patients with RA.

Rare Cases of Infusion-Related Reactions (IRRs) Presenting As Pain Events during or after Crizanlizumab Infusion in Patients (Pts) with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD): A Systematic Evaluation of Post-Marketing (PM) Reports

Background: Vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) are the hallmark of SCD. VOCs and silent vaso-occlusion can lead to complications (eg acute chest syndrome, hepatic/renal dysfunction, chronic pain, multi-organ failure) and premature death. Crizanlizumab, an anti-P-selectin monoclonal antibody (mAb), is authorized in >40 countries to prevent/reduce VOCs in SCD pts aged ≥16 yrs. IRRs are defined as any signs/symptoms (S/S) experienced by pts during/within 24 hrs of infusion of a pharmacologic/biologic agent. IRRs are quite common with mAbs (frequency 1.6‒99%; Rombouts et al Anticancer Res 2020). S/S of IRRs vary; pain events, such as headache, back pain, myalgia, chest pain and joint pain, have been described as S/S of IRRs. Although pain events are known adverse drug reactions in the crizanlizumab label (eg arthralgia, myalgia, pain at various locations), due to data limitations and confounding manifestations of SCD, pain events occurring during/within 24 hrs of crizanlizumab infusion in SUSTAIN were not identified as potential IRRs (Ataga et al N Engl J Med 2017). For pts receiving crizanlizumab, IRR-related pain events may differ in location, severity and/or nature from a pt's usual SCD/VOC pain. Aim: To review data on IRRs presenting as pain events in SCD pts treated with crizanlizumab via reports received by Novartis since approval in Nov 2019. Methods: Data sources included PM reports from providers (spontaneous) and reports from the managed access/pt orientation program. To obtain the reports (which could include ≥1 event), a cumulative custom search of the Novartis safety database was performed up to Jun 2021, using ~111 MedDRA terms associated with potential S/S of IRRs presenting as pain events. IRRs must have occurred during/within 24 hrs of the most recent crizanlizumab infusion, and pain could differ from a pt's usual SCD/VOC, with/without other S/S. IRR incidence was measured by the reporting rate (RR). Reports were not gathered via a uniform data collection system, so there are limitations, including potential underreporting, incompletely documented cases, or bias towards reporting severe events. Results: IRRs presenting as pain events were experienced by 28 pts (Table 1); the most common S/S were back pain, pain in extremity, arthralgia, musculoskeletal chest pain and headache. RR was 1.67 cases per 100 pt-yrs (95% CI 1.11‒2.42). Most pts (n=24) initially experienced IRR at the 1st or 2nd infusion, and the majority recovered within 3 days. IRR recurred on subsequent infusion(s) in 6 pts. Of the 28 pts, 20 (71%) were hospitalized for further treatment, including analgesics, antihistamines, IV fluids and/or steroids. Nine pts (32%) reported SCD complications after IRR (Table 2). Crizanlizumab was discontinued in 23 pts (82%) after their most recent IRR occurrence, including all pts who experienced secondary SCD complications. Discussion: Comprehensive investigation identified 28 pts with reported IRRs presenting as pain events that had a potential causal relationship with crizanlizumab infusion based on temporality. All pts recovered or are recovering, except 1 who had SCD complications and refused blood transfusions for personal reasons. Most pts had initial IRR at the 1st or 2nd infusion and discontinued crizanlizumab after initial IRR; 6 experienced recurrent IRRs on subsequent infusion(s). Resolution time was prolonged for pts who reported known SCD complications following IRR. Causal association of complications following IRR was confounded by the underlying disease and use of steroids to treat IRRs. Systemic corticosteroid exposure in SCD pts has been associated with pain and other complications, from severe VOCs to hemorrhagic stroke and death. No data are available regarding whether the 28 pts had an active VOC or other SCD complications prior to receiving crizanlizumab. Conclusions: Although rare, based on review of PM data, healthcare professionals should be aware of the possibility of IRRs presenting as pain events during or after any crizanlizumab infusion. Crizanlizumab labels have been/are being updated by Novartis to provide information on monitoring for S/S of IRRs presenting as pain events, and guidance on management/prevention of subsequent IRRs, including a statement recommending caution when using corticosteroids in SCD pts. Given the limited data regarding IRRs and predictability of complications, Novartis is committed to further understanding these events. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kanter: Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beam: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Graphite Bio: Consultancy; GuidePoint Global: Honoraria; Fulcrum Tx: Consultancy. Shah: Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joshi: Novartis Healthcare Private Limited: Current Employment. Mehta: Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.: Current Employment. Levine: Biontech: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arunagiri: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Paulose: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Current Employment. Donohue: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Scalera: Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Manwani: Novartis: Consultancy.

75. Utility of Fungal Blood Cultures in Portland, Oregon

Background Fungal blood cultures (fungal isolators) should be used, if at all, primarily for identification of mold infections. At our institution we noted patients having fungal blood cultures drawn in many other situations, including when the primary team was concerned for candida bloodstream infection. We sought to describe the utility of this practice and of fungal blood cultures in general. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the results of fungal blood cultures for 2 years, from 3/1/2019-3/1/2021. We evaluated the number of episodes, culture results, whether there was a had prior bloodstream infection, and risk factors for fungal infection including renal replacement (RRT), ECMO, and immunosuppression (IS). Immunosuppression was defined as chronic systemic steroid use, recent receipt of high dose steroids within 2 weeks, history of organ transplantation, history of stem cell transplantation, hematologic malignancies, or receipt of a biologic agent. Results 187 fungal blood cultures were drawn in 143 patients - 80 cultures in 70 patients from 3/2019-3/2020 and 107 cultures in 73 patients from 3/2020-3/2021. Only 3 patients had positive fungal blood cultures:1 (Candida krusei) from 3/2019-3/2020 and 2 (Candida albicans and Cyrptococcus neoformans) from 3/2020-3/2021; in all 3 cases the organism also grew from standard blood culture isolators. From 3/2019-3/2020, 1/80 cultures were drawn from an individual on ECMO while 15/80 were drawn from individuals on RRT, and 32/80 were in a IS individuals. From 3/2020-3/2021, 45/107 cultures were drawn from an individual on ECMO, 24/107 were drawn in an individual on RRT, and 73/107 were drawn in a IS individuals. The majority of individuals in whom a fungal blood culture was drawn during 3/2020-3/2021 were individuals with COVID-19. Upon chart review most of the cultures were drawn due to concern for candidemia. Results of fungal blood cultures drawn from 3/2019-3/2021 at OHSU Conclusion Fungal blood cultures have an extremely low yield at our institution, with a 1.6% positivity rate over a 2 year period, and all of those cultures were detected by standard blood culture isolators. Most of these cultures were drawn in situations where this test has no utility. Furthermore, the test has limited utility to detect dimorphic and mold bloodstream infections. Restriction of this test may limit inappropriate use. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Bullous Pemphigoid

BackgroundBullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering disorder that predominantly affects the elderly. As the main treatment for BP, systemic corticosteroids are often limited by their side effects. Safer treatment modalities are therefore needed. Dupilumab is a biologic agent used to treat BP in recent years.MethodsMedical records of patients with moderate-to-severe BP were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-four patients were included (follow-up period: 32 weeks), eight of whom received dupilumab in combination with methylprednisolone and azathioprine (dupilumab group) while the other 16 patients received methylprednisolone and azathioprine (conventional group). Response to dupilumab was evaluated by comparison of several parameters (time to stop new blister formation, time to reduce the systemic glucocorticoids to minimal dose, and total amount of methylprednisolone).ResultsThe median age of patients in the dupilumab and conventional groups were 64.50 years (range: 22–90 years) and 64.50 years (range: 17–86 years), respectively. The median duration of disease before admission in the dupilumab group was 2 months (range: 1–240 months) and 2.5 months (range: 1–60 months) in the conventional group. The median time to stop new blister formation was 8 days (range: 1–13 days) and 12 days (range: 5–21 days) in patients of the dupilumab and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.028 by Kaplan-Meier analysis). In addition, the median time to reduce the systemic glucocorticoids to minimal dose (methylprednisolone 0.08 mg/kg/day) was 121.5 and 148.5 days for the dupilumab and conventional therapy groups, respectively (p = 0.0053 by Kaplan-Meier analysis). The median total amount of methylprednisolone (at the time of reaching the minimal dose) used in the dupilumab group was 1,898 mg (range: 1,624–2,932 mg) while the cumulative dose of conventional group was 2,344 mg (range: 1,708–4,744 mg) (p = 0.036 by Mann-Whitney U test). The median total amount of azathioprine (at the time of reaching the minimal dose) used in dupilumab group was 8,300 mg (range: 7,100–10,400 mg) while the total dose of conventional group was 10,300 mg (range: 8,900–14,400 mg) (p = 0.0048 by Mann-Whitney U test). No adverse event related to dupilumab was recorded.ConclusionsDupilumab in addition to methylprednisolone and azathioprine seems superior to methylprednisolone/azathioprine alone in controlling disease progression and accelerating the tapering of glucocorticoids.

Cardiotoxicity in Biological Agent-Targeted Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: ADR Signal Mining and Analysis of Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database

Purpose: Biologic agent-induced cardiotoxicity is markedly concerning. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biologic agents is known to have the potential for cardiotoxicity; however, existing clinical evidence is not adequate to explain real-world patterns of cardiotoxicity. In this study, we quantify the risk of cardiotoxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological agents.Methods: Cardiotoxicity reports induced by four types of biologic agents, abatacept, adalimumab, tocilizumab, and etanercept were used to mine data from the FDA's adverse event reporting system (FAERS) database from January 1, 2004 through September 30, 2020. Reports of cardiotoxic events were analyzed using a reporting odds ratio (ROR) algorithm, the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), the multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS), and logistic regression methods. We use the preferred term of the Medical Dictionary of Regulatory Activities to identify such events.Results: A total of 3,969 reports of cardiotoxic events were identified involving biologic agents used for RA as the suspect drugs in this study, 317 reports of abatacept, 2,137 reports of adalimumab, 273 reports of tocilizumab, and 1,242 reports of etanercept. Adalimumab was the most reported, followed by etanercept. The proportion of death and disability outcomes reported for each targeted treatment represents approximately 20–25% of the total reported severe adverse events. In addition, relatively low cardiotoxicity reporting rates were found with abatacept.Conclusion: Analysis of FAERS data offers a more precise profile on the characteristics and occurrences of cardiotoxic events. The findings are a clinical reminder to physicians that an increased vigilance concerning the cardiotoxic effects of biological agents needs to be implemented. Also, more comparative studies are required in the future to explain the mechanisms that cause these cardiac phenomena.

Biologic Treatment for the Elbow Tendinopathy

Although elbow tendinopathy is the one of common diseases causing elbow pain, ideal nonoperative treatment to provide long-term satisfaction has not been introduced. Recently, there is significant interest in biological treatment to facilitate the healing environment and tissue proliferation in elbow tendinopathy. Biological agents such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or stem cells are likely to be established as one of the nonoperative treatment methods that can have long-term therapeutic effects in the future, given their theoretical basis. Despite many previous studies using biological agents such as PRP and stem cells in the elbow, its beneficial effect on elbow tendinopathy is controversial. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide an evidence-based summary of the biologic agent for treating elbow tendinopathy and to identify areas where further research is warranted.

Golimumab in juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis unresponsive to Adalimumab

Objective To assess the efficacy of golimumab (GLM) as a treatment option for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)-associated uveitis refractory to adalimumab (ADA). Methods Retrospective single-centre study including patients with JIA receiving GLM for active uveitis after failing ADA. JIA- and uveitis-related data, including intraocular inflammation, best-corrected visual acuity, corticosteroid-sparing potential, and ocular complications were evaluated at start of GLM treatment, at 1 month and 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter during GLM administration. We further investigated the association of response to GLM with primary and secondary failure of ADA treatment. Results Ten patients were studied, all female (17 affected eyes, mean age 14.3 + 6.7 yrs., mean follow-up 25.2 + 21.7 mos). Two patients were switched to GLM because of primary non-response to ADA. Eight were switched because of loss of response (LOR). In 5 of the latter LOR was associated with neutralizing anti-ADA-antibodies. Response to GLM was observed in all 8 patients with LOR, while the 2 patients with primary non-response to ADA also did not respond to GLM. Three of the 8 responders experienced LOR. At the end of follow-up 4 of the 5 remaining responders had achieved complete response. One had achieved partial response. Conclusion GLM is an efficacious therapeutic option in patients who experience LOR to ADA. Our data indicate that patients without primary response to ADA should be rather switched to a biologic agent with a different mode of action instead of further blocking the TNF-alpha pathway.