Eight pillars of oncorheumatology: Crossroads between malignancies and musculoskeletal diseases

Efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: update for the practising clinician

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, including tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib, are increasingly used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There has been debate about their safety, particularly following the issuance of guidance by regulatory agencies advising caution in their use in certain patients. The registrational clinical trials and registry data of JAK inhibitors did not identify a difference in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), venous thromboembolism, malignancies or infections (other than herpes zoster) with a JAK inhibitor versus a biologic DMARD. In the ORAL Surveillance trial, which enrolled patients >50 years of age with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor, tofacitinib was statistically inferior to TNF inhibitors for the occurrence of MACEs and malignancy. Further post hoc analysis of the data revealed that an age of ≥65 years, a high baseline cardiovascular risk, a history of smoking, sustained inflammation, disease activity and suboptimal treatment of cardiovascular comorbidities all increase the risk of these outcomes. The guidance issued by regulatory agencies should be carefully considered to ensure appropriate and safe treatment of patients with RA without undertreatment of patients who might benefit from JAK inhibitor, as well as biologic, treatment. As always, the risks associated with the use of these agents, treatment goals, costs and patient preferences should be discussed with the patient.

Immune-related adverse events of anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors: a single center experience

Objectives

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) stimulate antitumor immune responses and, in parallel, they might trigger autoimmune and other immunopathological mechanisms eventually leading to immune-related adverse events (irAE). In our study, we assessed patients with malignancies who underwent anti-PD-1 treatment at the University of Debrecen, Clinical Center.

Patients and methods

Between June 2017 and May 2021, 207 patients started ICI treatment at our university. A total of 157 patients received nivolumab and 50 were treated with pembrolizumab. We looked for factors associated with the development of irAEs. In addition to correlation studies, we performed binary logistic regression analysis to determine, which factors were associated with irAEs. We also performed Forward Likelihood Ratio (LR) analysis to determine independent prognostic factors.

Results

At the time of data analysis, the mean duration of treatment was 2.03 ± 0.69 years. ROC analysis determined that 9 or more treatment cycles were associated with a significantly higher risk of irAEs. A total of 125 patients received ≥9 treatment cycles. Three times more patients were treated with nivolumab than pembrolizumab. Of the 207 patients, 66 (32%) developed irAEs. Among the 66 patients who developed irAEs, 36 patients (55%) developed one, 23 (35%) developed two, while 7 (10%) developed three irAEs in the same patient. The most common irAEs were thyroid (33 cases), dermatological (25 cases), pneumonia (14 cases) and gastrointestinal complications (13 cases). Patients who developed irAEs received significantly more treatment cycles (21.8 ± 18.7 versus 15.8 ± 17.4; p=0.002) and were younger at the start of treatment (60.7 ± 10.8 versus 63.4 ± 10.1 years; p=0.042) compared to patients without irAEs. Pembrolizumab-treated patients developed more but less severe irAEs compared to those receiving nivolumab.

Conclusion

ICI treatment is very effective, however, irAEs may develop. These irAEs might be related to the number of treatment cycles and the type of treated malignancy.

Association between Gastric Cancer and 12 Autoimmune Diseases: A Mendelian Randomization Study

BACKGROUND

Whether the positive associations of gastric cancer (GC) with autoimmune diseases are causal has always been controversial. This study aims to estimate the causal relationship between GC and 12 autoimmune diseases by means of Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis.

METHODS

After rigorous evaluation, potential candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for GC and 12 autoimmune diseases were extracted from genome-wide association study (GWAS) datasets. We performed the MR analyses using the inverse variance weighted (IVW) method as the primary approach to the analysis. Three sensitivity analysis methods were added to assess the robustness of the results. In addition, heterogeneity was measured using Cochran's Q-value, and horizontal pleiotropy was assessed using MR-Egger regression and leave-one-out analysis.

RESULTS

The IVW result, which is the main method of analysis, shows no evidence of a causal association between GC and any autoimmune disease. The results of IVW analysis show the relationship between rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.1389), systemic lupus erythematosus (p = 0.1122), Crohn's disease (p = 0.1509), multiple sclerosis (p = 0.3944), primary sclerosing cholangitis (p = 0.9022), primary biliary cirrhosis (p = 0.7776), type 1 diabetes (p = 0.9595), ulcerative colitis (p = 0.5470), eczema (p = 0.3378), asthma (p = 0.7436), celiac disease (p = 0.4032), and psoriasis (p = 0.7622) and GC susceptibility. The same result was obtained with the weighted median and the MR-egger (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study did not find a genetic causal relationship between susceptibility to these autoimmune diseases and GC, which suggests that unmeasured confounders (e.g., inflammatory processes) or shared genetic architecture may be responsible for the reported epidemiologic associations. Further studies of ancestral diversity are warranted to validate such causal associations.

Association between Androgen Deprivation Therapy and the Risk of Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases in Men with Prostate Cancer: Nationwide Cohort Study in Lithuania

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the association between androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and the risk of inflammatory rheumatic diseases in men with prostate cancer. Methods: Patients with prostate cancer between 2012 and 2016 were identified from the Lithuanian Cancer Registry and the National Health Insurance Fund database, on the basis of rheumatic diseases diagnoses and information on prescriptions for androgen deprivation therapy. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) to compare the risks of rheumatic diseases caused by androgen deprivation therapy exposure in groups of prostate cancer patients. Results: A total of 12,505 prostate cancer patients were included in this study, out of whom 3070 were ADT users and 9390 were ADT non-users. We observed a higher risk of rheumatic diseases in the cohort of prostate cancer patients treated with ADT compared with ADT non-users (HR 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01−2.28). Detailed risk by cumulative use of ADT was performed for rheumatoid arthritis, and a statistically significant higher risk was found in the group with longest cumulative ADT exposure (>105 weeks) (HR 3.18, 95% CI 1.39−7.29). Conclusions: Our study suggests that ADT usage could be associated with increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis, adding to the many known side effects of ADT.

Methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: Is the anchor drug still holding?

Treat-to-target (T2T) is currently the most fashionable strategy for treatment-naïve, early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. A T2T approach can lead to a complete and drug-free disease remission, whereas failure to obtain remission leads to damage early in the disease course. Hence, one should try to achieve high remission rates as early as possible, implementing the best therapeutic strategies available. Methotrexate (MTX) combined with glucocorticoid bridging is the mainstay of T2T. However, MTX is often used suboptimally in RA patients for many reasons, including poor tolerability, low compliance, and safety issues. Recent evidence has suggested that novel targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) such as the Janus-kinase (JAK) inhibitors in combination with glucocorticoids yielded better outcomes in early RA than conventional treatment. Such an approach may have advantages in terms of patients' outcomes, though some concerns about serious adverse events need to be addressed.

A Review of Safety Outcomes from Clinical Trials of Baricitinib in Rheumatology, Dermatology and COVID-19

Baricitinib is an oral, selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 that transiently and reversibly inhibits many proinflammatory cytokines. This mechanism is a key mediator in a number of chronic inflammatory diseases; accordingly, baricitinib has been studied and approved for the treatment of several rheumatological and dermatological disorders, as well as COVID-19. This narrative review summarises and discusses the safety profile of baricitinib across these diseases, with special focus on adverse events of special interest (AESI) for JAK inhibitors, using integrated safety data sets of clinical trial data, and puts findings into context with the underlying risk in the respective disease populations, using supporting literature. We show that rates of infection with baricitinib generally reflected the inherent risk of the disease populations being treated, with serious infections and herpes zoster being more frequent in rheumatic diseases than in dermatological disorders, and herpes simplex being reported particularly in atopic dermatitis. Similarly, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), venous thromboembolism (VTE) and malignancies were generally within or below the ranges reported for the respective disease populations, thereby reflecting the underlying risk; these events were therefore more frequent in patients with rheumatic diseases than in those with dermatological disorders, the latter of whom generally had low absolute risk. AESI were usually more common in patients with risk factors specific for each event. When a population similar to that of ORAL Surveillance was considered, the incidence rate of MACE with baricitinib was numerically lower than that reported with tofacitinib and similar to that of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. No safety concerns were observed in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who received baricitinib for up to 14 days. Identifying the patterns and likelihoods of AEs that occur during treatment in large groups of patients with different diseases can help the physician and patient better contextualise the benefit-to-risk ratio for the individual patient.

Tocilizumab for the treatment of immune-related adverse events: a systematic literature review and a multicentre case series

OBJECTIVE

Research is moving towards a more personalized management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of these clinical manifestations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to retrieve data about the use of tocilizumab in the treatment of irAEs. Additionally, data from cancer patients referred to our Immune-related Adverse Event Clinic and treated with tocilizumab were collected.

RESULTS

Our literature review identified 20 articles and 11 meeting abstracts. Data about 91 cancer patients who received tocilizumab for the treatment of irAEs were collected. In 85% of cases, this therapy was associated with clinical benefit and no case of disease progression was reported. ICI therapy was continued following irAE onset and biologic therapy initiation in only three patients. Five patients developed irAEs upon ICI initiation and were subsequently treated with tocilizumab at our Centre. At a median follow-up of eight months, tocilizumab was safely continued along with ICI in three out of five patients, and an adequate control of irAE was obtained in all cases. No significant adverse reactions to tocilizumab were reported. Only one patient experienced a disease progression 18 months after ICI discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Both our systematic literature review and case series highlight the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the treatment of irAEs. Furthermore, they both support the possibility of a combined approach with tocilizumab and ICI, to guarantee an effective irAEs management without losing the oncologic response.

Autoimmunity and cancer

In many autoimmune rheumatic diseases, there is an increased risk of cancer compared to the general population. The link between autoimmunity and cancer is dynamic and bidirectional. Recent advances in terms of knowledge of biology, epidemiology, and long-term outcomes for the autoimmune rheumatic diseases have revealed several new connections between these two entities. Data suggest that chronic inflammation from the rheumatic diseases or their therapies may contribute to the onset and promotion of cancer. Conversely, antitumor immune responses may become cross-reactive with self-tissues resulting in the development of autoimmunity. In this review, we discuss about the potential mechanisms that link autoimmune rheumatic diseases and cancer and the association of malignancies with common autoimmune disorders. The increased incidence of malignancy in autoimmune rheumatic diseases has been largely described, although the biology underpinning this relationship should be further investigated. The development of evidence-based cancer screening recommendations in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases is complex due to the heterogeneity of clinical rheumatic phenotypes, cancer sites at risk and exposure to anti-neoplastic and anti-rheumatic treatment. In order to lay the foundation of risk stratification and targeted cancer screening, larger longitudinal cohort studies that provide a more detailed framework of the links between cancer and autoimmunity are urgently needed.

Aromatase and CDK4/6 Inhibitor-Induced Musculoskeletal Symptoms: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is fundamental in women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant as well as the metastatic setting. Even though it is considered to be a well-tolerated therapy, aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) is the most common adverse event encountered by breast cancer patients. CDK4/6 inhibitors have emerged as a new treatment strategy in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, the impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors on musculoskeletal symptoms caused by AIs is not well-defined.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to identify the frequency of joint symptoms induced by treatment with AIs and CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Eligible articles were identified by a search of existing literature for the period 2005/01/01-2021/01/01; The algorithm consisted of a predefined combination of the following keywords "breast", "cancer", "aromatase inhibitors", "CDK4/6", "phase III".

SELECTION CRITERIA

This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All randomized controlled Phase III trials (RCTs) evaluating the administration of third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and CDK4/6 inhibitors in postmenopausal women in the metastatic setting were considered eligible for this review.

DATA COLLECTION

Overall, 16 randomized control trials (RCTs) were retrieved, of which nine studies explored the administration of AIs in the metastatic setting and seven studies investigated the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors and AIs. Arthralgia was reported in 1-47% of patients treated with AIs and 5.8-33.3% of patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Myalgias occurred in 2-23.7% of patients receiving AIs compared with 4.8-11.9% of patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors. The incidence of back pain was 7-32.9% vs. 2.9-8.5% in postmenopausal women with metastatic disease treated with AIs and CDK4/6 inhibitors, respectively. Bone pain was reported in 7-32.9% of postmenopausal women treated with AIs and 2.9-8.5% of women treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

AI treatment-induced musculoskeletal syndrome is an adverse event affecting over one-third (20-47%) of postmenopausal patients treated with AIs that often leads to treatment discontinuation. Data from RCTs provide evidence that the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms is relatively decreased upon CDK4/6 inhibitor administration. CDK4/6 inhibitors may provide a protective role against AIMSS development.