Kickas.org Forums Ankylosing Spondylitis General Discussion #1 AS Web Support Group IL 17 drug advances in AS trials... fails in RA

Good report

IL 17 Drug failed to be much help in RA but showed good promise in AS in phase 2 trials. I believe we will see more and more separation between AS and RA drugs.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACR/23290

The mechanisms for RA and AS seem to be quite different and it sounds like consensus is building that they are basically two different diseases so I guess this report isn't surprising.

It's funny that before I had a firm diagnosis, when spondy was still a possibility, my rheumy said "autoimmune arthritis" and the treatments are pretty much the same so we don't really have to worry about which it is. That is becoming clearly an incorrect approach!

pointing up the importance of a correct and proper dx!

interesting that some drugs are more general and others more specific, find that fascinating. guess if it can't be narrowed down, could go with the more general drugs, but still a proper dx seems best.

I think the closer we move to the genetic root of the disease the more the treatments will differ. TNF is pretty far down the genetic ladder so it makes sense it helps both RA and AS. (although it seems to help AS better than RA) Move up one step to IL 17 and we see less overlap. Move up to IL 23 and I doubt it will help RA at all but may prevent AS symptoms.

RA research really seems to be hitting on IL 6. Acterma I think is now out for RA and in trials for AS. I wonder if it will not work really well for AS? IL 6 has not been implicate din AS. but it may be in teh chain of inflammation somewhere and play a secondary role in AS.

what if there are other inflammatory arthritises that have not been named yet, not RA nor AS (nor even a spondy), then wonder if the less specific TNF inhibitors would be the way to go. i just remember a doctor stating early on, "over 100 different kinds of autoimmune diseases known, probably more that haven't even been named yet." of course that was before doctors realized i have undiff spondy. still..........

Note that there were a of of side effects - many infections reported. Hmmmmm.

Drizz, thanks for this. Exciting times!

And it's about time somebody with some clout figured out that RA and AS are NOT the same flipping disease!

Warm hugs,

Molly, I hear you, but remember infection can be easily avoided in most cases. There are people who will get an infection more easily, no matter how many times a day they wash their hands. That is their physiological make-up. Our dear Lady Buggee for one. I have no doubt that she followed all the protocols, but still got horribly ill.

Many patients, however, manage to avoid this particular side effect of biologic meds by simple good hygiene. And that's simply a result of their particular physiological make-up. The only time I've had infections while on these meds is when I've been stupid about it.

Now, if there were an untoward increase in MS, or Lupus, or some other like disease in a majority of patients on these meds, diseases that the patient has no control over, that's a different story altogether. The way it stands right now, this is not the case. Some people react in this way to these meds. They should not take these meds. Other people do not and for them, the med may be just fine.

You can't black and white a question like this. As with all things treatment-based (pharma or non-pharma), there are tons of shades of grey, not to mention every colour in the spectrum. Much is dependent on the individual patient's chemical make-up and physiology, whether it's NSD, high quality supplements, Celebrex, LDN, or a biologic.

Just saying.

Warm hugs,

Only pointed it out Kat - that's what the article said, many more infections in those taking the drug.

Up to people to take or not to take... Not a critique. As said, I read the article and that is what it stated. Sure, some people are prone to infections and others not - TG am a 'not' person, though DO react to most drugs in a startling manner! Whole gamut of side effects including the 'rare' ones, and, at that 'most' of the rare ones - and then including all the common ones...

Just responding 'Smile'.

You and my sweetie are very much alike in that. If there's a horrific side effect to a drug that's 'benign' in 90% of the population, he'll get it. Luckily, and touching wood here, he hasn't had that with Enbrel. Phew!!

Warm hugs,