Comparison of cardiovascular, cancer and herpes zoster risk of tofacitinib versus etanercept: Single Centre Observational Study

Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors. Part I: Cancer Risk. A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Biological drugs (BD) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have revolutionized the treatment of diverse dermatoses. However, there are concerns regarding their safety, especially the risk of cancer and opportunistic infections. Here, we discuss the risk of cancer associated with the BD and JAKi used in dermatology.

METHODS

A narrative review was carried out. All relevant articles evaluating the risk of cancer associated with BD or JAKi and published between January 2010 and February 2024 were selected.

RESULTS

Multiple large studies have evaluated the association between BD, JAKi and cancer risk. However, there is a lack of prospective, comparative studies. Overall, patients undergoing BD and JAKi present a cutaneous cancer incidence similar to that in the general population. The drugs more strongly associated with non-skin cancer risk were anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNFs) agents and JAKi (especially tofacitinib and oral ruxolitinib). This risk appears to increase with age, the presence of other factors (such as chronic immunosuppression from previous drugs or other comorbidities), and specific diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and myelodysplastic syndrome. Conversely, BD such as interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors may even reduce the risk of some visceral and hematological malignancies. In patients with dermatological conditions such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, the risk of malignancies may be lower than in other subgroups, and probably comparable to the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of cancer in patients undergoing BD or JAKi is generally low. This incidence can be higher in elderly patients with RA or myelodysplastic syndrome, and in those undergoing prolonged therapy with tofacitinib or ruxolitinib (oral), or anti-TNF agents.

How to Use Janus Kinase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis? A Clinical Assessment of Risks and Benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an updated understanding of risks and benefits of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) versus biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Shared decision-making is needed in choosing between JAKi and bDMARDs. Cardiovascular disease, malignancy, and thromboembolic events guide this choice. In patients with active RA despite methotrexate use, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is conditionally favored over JAKi for low-cardiovascular-risk patients and strongly favored in those with pre-existing cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Suboptimal treatment of treatment-refractory RA patients may pose a greater absolute cardiovascular risk than with JAKi use. Use of aspirin and statin may be considered to reduce cardiovascular risk. New safety data on JAKi has redefined the treatment approach in RA. JAKi remains an important oral medication option in active RA despite treatment with bDMARDs, especially in those with low cardiovascular risk.

Managing Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk Associated with JAK Inhibitors

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have enormous appeal as immune-modulating therapies across many chronic inflammatory diseases, but recently this promise has been overshadowed by questions regarding associated cardiovascular and cancer risk emerging from the ORAL Surveillance phase 3b/4 post-marketing requirement randomized controlled trial. In that study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with existing cardiovascular risk, tofacitinib, the first JAKi registered for chronic inflammatory disease, failed to meet non-inferiority thresholds when compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors for both incident major adverse cardiovascular events and incident cancer. While this result was unexpected by many, subsequently published observational data have also supported this finding. Notably, however, such a risk has largely not yet been demonstrated in patients outside the specific clinical situation examined in the trial, even in the face of many studies examining this. Nevertheless, this signal has practically re-aligned approaches to both tofacitinib and other JAKi to varying extents, in other patient populations and contexts: within rheumatoid arthritis, but also in psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, atopic dermatitis, and beyond. Application to individual patients can be more challenging but remains important to harness the substantive potential of JAKi to the maximum extent safely possible. This review not only explores the evolution of the regulatory response to the signal, its informing data, biological plausibility, and its impact on guidelines, but also the many factors that clinicians must consider in navigating cardiovascular and cancer risk for their patients considering JAKi as immune-modulating therapy.

Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Rheumatoid Arthritis Anno 2022

The risk for developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients is 1.5 times higher compared to the general population. This risk is partly due to the contribution of systemic inflammation in increased atherogenesis, while an increased prevalence of "traditional" cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, is also attributed to nearly 50% of the total CVD risk. Most anti-rheumatic medication partly reduces this CVD risk, primarily by reducing inflammation. The increased risk is recognized by most guidelines, which advise consequent screening and multiplying calculated risk scores by 1.5. However, screening in daily clinical practice is poorly done, and RA patients often have undiagnosed and untreated risk factors. In conclusion, even nowadays, RA patients still have an increased risk of developing CVD. Advances in anti-inflammatory treatment partly mitigate this risk, but RA patients need mandatory screening for CV risk factors to turn their CVD risk towards that of the general population.