TBD Meeting (4660-21)

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Apremilast (Otezla) monotherapy may be an effective option in oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis, Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, reported at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Her analysis of apremilast data from the CORRONA Registry was among several recent highlights in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cited by speakers at the meeting. Other significant developments included a large pan-Scandinavian study that reassuringly found no increased risk of solid cancers in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor–treated patients with PsA, and evidence to suggest a sex difference in the efficacy of both secukinumab (Cosentyx) and adalimumab (Humira), with men responding better than women to two biologics with differing mechanisms of action.
 

A role for apremilast in oligoarticular disease?

Dr. Ogdie presented an analysis of 150 patients in the U.S. observational CORRONA Registry who initiated monotherapy for oligoarticular PsA and were followed for 6 months. Thirty-four started on apremilast, 15 on methotrexate, and 101 on a biologic. Even though the apremilast group had higher baseline disease activity than did those who started on methotrexate, at 6 months a swollen joint count of 1 or 0 was present in 41% of the apremilast-treated patients, compared with none on methotrexate and 15% on a biologic agent.

A tender joint count of 0-1 was documented at 6 months in 24% of patients on apremilast, 13% with methotrexate, and 21% on a biologic agent. Apremilast’s numeric superiority in outcomes compared to methotrexate in this exploratory study wasn’t subjected to statistical analysis because of the small sample size. However, the ongoing phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter FOREMOST trial in 330 patients with early oligoarticular PsA should provide more definitive efficacy data, noted Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

RWCS program director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, said, “The most recent EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology] PsA guidelines totally discount apremilast, and I think mostly on the basis of cost, but then they also say that in groups of people it’s not as effective as methotrexate.”

“This study shows to me that, even though it’s a registry, with all the caveats about getting data from registries, apremilast certainly can be an effective drug,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Another valuable piece of information from the CORRONA analysis is that it zeros in on patients with oligoarticular PsA.

“Almost all of our PsA studies are focused on people with polyarticular disease. What about those who have lesser involvement? That, of course, is important in the clinic,” he noted.

Dr. Ogdie concurred.

“If we study only polyarticular disease and we make all of our assumptions based on polyarticular disease, we might be leaving out at least half of the patients with PsA. And those patients may not need a bigger gun. Apremilast and methotrexate are kind of in the same group for that mild oligoarticular disease, and they probably work just fine,” she said.

A final point: “We really don’t have good outcome measures to study oligoarticular disease well. The ACR20 is not good because a 20% improvement in three joints is not readily measurable. That’s why trialists enroll patients with high joint count numbers,” according to the rheumatologist.

No increased risk of solid cancers in PsA patients treated with TNF inhibitors

A new analysis of clinical rheumatology registries in five Nordic countries finally puts to rest any concerns that treatment of PsA with TNF inhibitors is associated with increased risk of solid cancers. The same group previously reported no link between TNF inhibitors and lymphoma in PsA.

The solid cancers study included 9,655 PsA patients who started a first TNF inhibitor during 2001-2017, 14,809 others not treated with biologics, and 31,350 matched general population controls. Linkage to Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, and Finnish national cancer registries showed that the adjusted risk for solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated, compared with biologic-naive PsA patients, was 1.0. Similarly, the pooled standardized incidence ratio of solid cancer in TNF inhibitor–treated PsA patients compared to the general population was 1.0. There was no signal of a differential risk for incident cancer for any of the eight malignancies studied: lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, uterine, brain, liver, and pancreatic cancer.

“I like this study a lot because it’s specific to PsA rather than extrapolating from rheumatoid arthritis data, where we have a bunch more information for a much longer period of time, but it’s a different population,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Dr. Ogdie said, “I talk to my patients about this particular study or the same group’s earlier lymphoma study all the time.”

“I have to say, these are important data for the dermatology world because there are dermatologists who are still not convinced that TNF inhibitors don’t have an increased risk of malignancy. This kind of information is going to be helpful,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.
 

Greater efficacy for biologics in males than females with PsA?

A secondary analysis of the phase 3b EXCEED trial raised the intriguing possibility that both secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, and adalimumab, a TNF inhibitor, have greater efficacy in men than in women with PsA. In this randomized trial of 853 biologic-naive patients with PsA, the ACR20 response rate to secukinumab at week 52 was 61% in females versus 74% in males, with ACR50 rates of 43% in females and 55.3% in males. The ACR20 rate with adalimumab was 51.5% in females and 70.2% in males. Similarly, the corresponding ACR50s were 32.6% and 55.3%, respectively. Minimal disease activity was achieved in 36.2% of women and 51% of men on secukinumab, and in 24.2% of women and 49.8% of men on adalimumab.

“These are randomized patients, so you really shouldn’t see these big differences in minimal disease activity,” Dr. Ogdie noted. “The question is why do men seem to respond better to therapy than women? I don’t think it’s the fibromyalgia-ness. There’s probably some biologic rationale for this that we just don’t understand yet. Maybe hormonal interactions.”

This gender difference in response is an important issue because it can potentially distort outcomes in head-to-head drug trials, Dr. Ruderman added.

“That gender difference is not likely to be huge if you’re looking at a placebo-controlled trial because the difference between the active drug and placebo is going to outweigh it. But when you have two active drugs, if there’s an imbalance in terms of how many men or women there are on each of the two drugs, you may end up with an efficacy difference that’s not real but is based on gender and not response to the drug,” he explained.

Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, a rheumatologist and clinical trialist at the University of Texas, Dallas, rose from the audience to pronounce the EXCEED male-versus-female analysis “very interesting.”

“We should go back and look at other trials and see if that occurred, and if it did, then we have to think about that going forward,” he proposed.

Dr. Ogdie, Dr. Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ruderman reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Telemedicine has had a profound effect upon the practice of rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so afterward, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

FatCamera/E+

“Telemedicine will change the way we do business. It already has,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“All of a sudden in March of last year we all turned on a dime and went 100% remote, and we made it work. And it has worked well. It’s not the same as seeing people in person, but I’m pretty sure that going forward probably somewhere in the range of 30% of our visits are going to be telemedicine. It’s an incredible way to deal with people who are stable and are driving in from an hour-and-a-half away to get their prescription refilled,” he said.

Conditions well suited for video patient visits are those where the physical exam isn’t informative or necessary, such as polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis with axial disease only, childhood periodic fever syndromes, and even many cases of rheumatoid arthritis, in Dr. Ruderman’s view.

“People who are stable – maybe not in remission, but we’ve decided they’re at that their target – a lot of those visits can be done remotely. It’s way more efficient. Everybody loves it: We like it, the patients like it. But we have to get to where we can do it better. The technology is clumsy right now,” he said.

“We do need better and smarter platforms,” agreed Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a telerheumatology pioneer who has been involved in digital/video communication with his patients for nearly 6 years. “But the biggest issue is connectivity. Not all of our patients can get on the Internet.”

The telerheumatology paradigm he has used during the pandemic and will continue to use afterward is to see every new patient in the office, then do the follow-up visits virtually.

“They don’t need to come back into the office in 4 weeks. I’ve done my physical exam, ordered the x-rays and lab work. At the virtual 4-week follow-up we go over everything and I tell them if they need to come in for training in giving their injections,” explained Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

“The telemedicine visit doesn’t take the place of an in-person visit, but it allows you to stratify, to say who needs to be seen sooner rather than later,” he added.

While he anticipates that physician-patient virtual visits will continue to be an important part of clinical practice post pandemic, he predicted the major growth areas for telerheumatology once COVID-19 is squashed will be in clinician-to-clinician interactions and remote patient monitoring using smart devices.

Dr. Wells hasn’t gone into the hospital once since the pandemic began. Initially, that was because he didn’t want to deal with the personal protective equipment shortage or expose himself to the virus. Now, it’s because it’s just a more efficient use of his time to conduct virtual – and billable – 15-minute e-consults with clinicians in the hospital.

“I’ve had a lot of appropriate consults with the hospitalists,” he said. He can walk a hospitalist through a real-time physical exam at a gout patient’s bedside and order the right laboratory tests.

“I don’t need to go into the hospital. The interventional radiologist can tap an ankle or toe as well as I can,” the rheumatologist said.

Dermatologist George Martin, MD, rose from the audience to say that while he recognizes that pandemic telemedicine has been a good fit for rheumatologists, it’s been a very different story in dermatology.

“I realize telemedicine works really well when you don’t have to lay your hands on a patient, or when you’re just doing a stable follow-up and talking about test results. But we in dermatology have found as a group that telemedicine is pretty worthless. When patients are trying to send you a video stream of what their melanoma looks like, or maybe it’s a benign seborrheic keratosis, you’re going to hang their life on that? Dermatology is a very hands-on, visual thing, and unless the camera work becomes better telemedicine is worthless, with the exception of a laboratory follow-up or a stable visit where a physical exam is not required,” declared Dr. Martin, who is in private practice in Maui.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a consultant to MiCare Path, a remote health and monitoring company.

[email protected]

Telemedicine has had a profound effect upon the practice of rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so afterward, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

FatCamera/E+

“Telemedicine will change the way we do business. It already has,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“All of a sudden in March of last year we all turned on a dime and went 100% remote, and we made it work. And it has worked well. It’s not the same as seeing people in person, but I’m pretty sure that going forward probably somewhere in the range of 30% of our visits are going to be telemedicine. It’s an incredible way to deal with people who are stable and are driving in from an hour-and-a-half away to get their prescription refilled,” he said.

Conditions well suited for video patient visits are those where the physical exam isn’t informative or necessary, such as polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis with axial disease only, childhood periodic fever syndromes, and even many cases of rheumatoid arthritis, in Dr. Ruderman’s view.

“People who are stable – maybe not in remission, but we’ve decided they’re at that their target – a lot of those visits can be done remotely. It’s way more efficient. Everybody loves it: We like it, the patients like it. But we have to get to where we can do it better. The technology is clumsy right now,” he said.

“We do need better and smarter platforms,” agreed Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a telerheumatology pioneer who has been involved in digital/video communication with his patients for nearly 6 years. “But the biggest issue is connectivity. Not all of our patients can get on the Internet.”

The telerheumatology paradigm he has used during the pandemic and will continue to use afterward is to see every new patient in the office, then do the follow-up visits virtually.

“They don’t need to come back into the office in 4 weeks. I’ve done my physical exam, ordered the x-rays and lab work. At the virtual 4-week follow-up we go over everything and I tell them if they need to come in for training in giving their injections,” explained Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

“The telemedicine visit doesn’t take the place of an in-person visit, but it allows you to stratify, to say who needs to be seen sooner rather than later,” he added.

While he anticipates that physician-patient virtual visits will continue to be an important part of clinical practice post pandemic, he predicted the major growth areas for telerheumatology once COVID-19 is squashed will be in clinician-to-clinician interactions and remote patient monitoring using smart devices.

Dr. Wells hasn’t gone into the hospital once since the pandemic began. Initially, that was because he didn’t want to deal with the personal protective equipment shortage or expose himself to the virus. Now, it’s because it’s just a more efficient use of his time to conduct virtual – and billable – 15-minute e-consults with clinicians in the hospital.

“I’ve had a lot of appropriate consults with the hospitalists,” he said. He can walk a hospitalist through a real-time physical exam at a gout patient’s bedside and order the right laboratory tests.

“I don’t need to go into the hospital. The interventional radiologist can tap an ankle or toe as well as I can,” the rheumatologist said.

Dermatologist George Martin, MD, rose from the audience to say that while he recognizes that pandemic telemedicine has been a good fit for rheumatologists, it’s been a very different story in dermatology.

“I realize telemedicine works really well when you don’t have to lay your hands on a patient, or when you’re just doing a stable follow-up and talking about test results. But we in dermatology have found as a group that telemedicine is pretty worthless. When patients are trying to send you a video stream of what their melanoma looks like, or maybe it’s a benign seborrheic keratosis, you’re going to hang their life on that? Dermatology is a very hands-on, visual thing, and unless the camera work becomes better telemedicine is worthless, with the exception of a laboratory follow-up or a stable visit where a physical exam is not required,” declared Dr. Martin, who is in private practice in Maui.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a consultant to MiCare Path, a remote health and monitoring company.

[email protected]

Telemedicine has had a profound effect upon the practice of rheumatology during the COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to do so afterward, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

FatCamera/E+

“Telemedicine will change the way we do business. It already has,” observed Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“All of a sudden in March of last year we all turned on a dime and went 100% remote, and we made it work. And it has worked well. It’s not the same as seeing people in person, but I’m pretty sure that going forward probably somewhere in the range of 30% of our visits are going to be telemedicine. It’s an incredible way to deal with people who are stable and are driving in from an hour-and-a-half away to get their prescription refilled,” he said.

Conditions well suited for video patient visits are those where the physical exam isn’t informative or necessary, such as polymyalgia rheumatica, axial spondyloarthritis with axial disease only, childhood periodic fever syndromes, and even many cases of rheumatoid arthritis, in Dr. Ruderman’s view.

“People who are stable – maybe not in remission, but we’ve decided they’re at that their target – a lot of those visits can be done remotely. It’s way more efficient. Everybody loves it: We like it, the patients like it. But we have to get to where we can do it better. The technology is clumsy right now,” he said.

“We do need better and smarter platforms,” agreed Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a telerheumatology pioneer who has been involved in digital/video communication with his patients for nearly 6 years. “But the biggest issue is connectivity. Not all of our patients can get on the Internet.”

The telerheumatology paradigm he has used during the pandemic and will continue to use afterward is to see every new patient in the office, then do the follow-up visits virtually.

“They don’t need to come back into the office in 4 weeks. I’ve done my physical exam, ordered the x-rays and lab work. At the virtual 4-week follow-up we go over everything and I tell them if they need to come in for training in giving their injections,” explained Dr. Wells, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

“The telemedicine visit doesn’t take the place of an in-person visit, but it allows you to stratify, to say who needs to be seen sooner rather than later,” he added.

While he anticipates that physician-patient virtual visits will continue to be an important part of clinical practice post pandemic, he predicted the major growth areas for telerheumatology once COVID-19 is squashed will be in clinician-to-clinician interactions and remote patient monitoring using smart devices.

Dr. Wells hasn’t gone into the hospital once since the pandemic began. Initially, that was because he didn’t want to deal with the personal protective equipment shortage or expose himself to the virus. Now, it’s because it’s just a more efficient use of his time to conduct virtual – and billable – 15-minute e-consults with clinicians in the hospital.

“I’ve had a lot of appropriate consults with the hospitalists,” he said. He can walk a hospitalist through a real-time physical exam at a gout patient’s bedside and order the right laboratory tests.

“I don’t need to go into the hospital. The interventional radiologist can tap an ankle or toe as well as I can,” the rheumatologist said.

Dermatologist George Martin, MD, rose from the audience to say that while he recognizes that pandemic telemedicine has been a good fit for rheumatologists, it’s been a very different story in dermatology.

“I realize telemedicine works really well when you don’t have to lay your hands on a patient, or when you’re just doing a stable follow-up and talking about test results. But we in dermatology have found as a group that telemedicine is pretty worthless. When patients are trying to send you a video stream of what their melanoma looks like, or maybe it’s a benign seborrheic keratosis, you’re going to hang their life on that? Dermatology is a very hands-on, visual thing, and unless the camera work becomes better telemedicine is worthless, with the exception of a laboratory follow-up or a stable visit where a physical exam is not required,” declared Dr. Martin, who is in private practice in Maui.

Dr. Wells reported serving as a consultant to MiCare Path, a remote health and monitoring company.

[email protected]

Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD

The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.

The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.

The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.

Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.

“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.

The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD

Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?

Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.

Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.

The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

[email protected]

Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD

The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.

The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.

The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.

Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.

“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.

The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD

Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?

Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.

Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.

The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

[email protected]

Sub-subspecialization would be counterproductive: Orrin M. Troum, MD

The much-discussed looming rheumatology workforce shortage is actually here already. And it’s going to worsen rapidly. Add to that the striking geographic maldistribution of rheumatologists across the United States, and it makes little sense for some rheumatologists to declare they’re only going to see patients with psoriatic arthritis, or gout, or lupus. Such sub-subspecialization will only worsen the workforce problem, Orrin M. Troum, MD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Besides, surveys indicate that most rheumatologists like what they do now, despite their status as the lowest-paid subspecialists within internal medicine. They enjoy a sense of satisfaction stemming from their ability to help patients with chronic debilitating diseases turn their lives around as a result of revolutionary treatment advances in the last 2 decades, said Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica.

The 2015 American College of Rheumatology Workforce Study concluded that the demand for adult rheumatology services already outstripped the supply by 12.9% in 2015. And as current rheumatologists retire in tandem with a growing aged general population saddled with an accompanying burgeoning prevalence of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, demand is expected to exceed supply by a whopping 102% in 2030.

The Workforce Study also highlighted the geographic maldistribution problem, with 21% of all adult rheumatologists now practicing in the Northeast and only 3.9% in the Southwest. Rheumatologists are also few and far between across large swaths of the South Central, North Central, and Northwest United States.

Today rheumatologists spend about half their working hours seeing patients with rheumatic diseases, one-quarter of their time in administrative tasks, 20% seeing patients with nonrheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis, and the rest in teaching or research. It could be argued that, if rheumatologists declined to see patients with osteoarthritis, a nonrheumatic disease, it would put a sizeable dent in the workforce shortage, but it’s clear that nonrheumatologists can’t reliably differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory arthritis. And there’s another problem with the idea of rheumatologists barring the office door to patients with nonrheumatic diseases: imagine a young clinical rheumatologist going out into practice and trying to tell referring internists, family physicians, and orthopedists that he or she doesn’t want to see patients with osteoarthritis, noninflammatory back pain, or fibromyalgia.

“How busy do you think you’re going to be, ever, if you tell the referring docs that you’re not going to see patients they think they need help with? And who’s going to make the correct diagnosis if we don’t at least see these patients initially?” Dr. Troum asked.

The case for sub-subspecialization: Martin J. Bergman, MD

Think about how many patients you’re treating for vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Behçet’s disease, or systemic sclerosis. Do you think you’re doing the best job that’s possible when you’re seeing just a handful of these patients, or would outcomes be better if they were seen at centers where the focus is specifically on these somewhat rare diseases? asked Martin J. Bergman, MD, a rheumatologist at Drexel University, Philadelphia, and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

We can take a lesson from other specialties. It’s well-documented that higher surgical volume brings better care and better outcomes for cardiovascular and cancer surgery. Specialized high-level trauma centers achieve 20%-30% better outcomes. And outcomes are also improved when joint replacement surgery is done at specialty centers. Why would we expect rheumatology to be any different?

Actually, there is already evidence from within our own field to support this concept. A longitudinal study of 150 consecutive SLE patients – half treated at the general rheumatology clinic at Rush University, Chicago, and the other half at the medical center’s specialized lupus clinic – showed demonstrably better quality-of-care outcomes for the patients seen in the dedicated lupus clinic. They were roughly twice as likely to undergo antiphospholipid antibody testing and were also significantly more likely to have bone mineral density testing, pneumococcal vaccination, and sunscreen counseling.

Look, I get it. This is not going to be possible everywhere. In underserved geographic areas, it may not be feasible. But I would think that, even in places where you can’t have sub-subspecialty clinics, maybe it’s time for rheumatologists to start thinking in terms of sub-specializing their own practice and getting out of areas where we can make little or no impact beyond what other physicians can accomplish. Most of us provide very little value for patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We have only so much time, and rather than taking care of anybody who has an ache or a pain we should focus on where we can make the most impact, and that’s inflammatory disease.

The speakers reported having no financial conflicts regarding their presentations.

[email protected]

Most checkpoint inhibitor–induced rheumatic complications in cancer patients can be treated successfully with corticosteroids, albeit often at considerably higher doses than rheumatologists typically use in managing rheumatoid arthritis, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, observed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“In RA, we’re all used to the idea that 5 or 10 mg of corticosteroids per day can make a tremendous difference. That’s not always the case here. Patients who develop rheumatic immunotherapy-related adverse events often require 20-30 mg/day to get symptoms under control,” according to Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

This may be in part because oncologists typically don’t refer affected patients to rheumatologists early on. Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology groups suggest referral only once a patient develops grade 3 immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events, meaning the symptoms significantly impair daily activities, he explained.

Checkpoint inhibitors, which induce T-cell activation to fight the patient’s malignancy, can produce a plethora of off-target effects. These adverse events may involve the skin, heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, blood, GI tract, and endocrine organs. The drugs also can cause rheumatic or neurologic complications. The most common of these adverse events are colitis and rash. Next most common are arthritis and arthralgia. Rheumatic side effects are most common as a consequence of immunotherapy using a CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitor, but can also occur in association with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and PD-ligand 1 inhibitors. Arthritis and other rheumatic adverse events are more common in patients undergoing combination therapy.

Some form of frank inflammatory arthritis occurs in 5%-10% of cancer patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This can manifest as an RA-like polyarthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, necrotizing myositis, or vasculitis. Arthralgia occurs in up to 40% of treated patients.

This immunotherapy-related arthritis is typically more inflammatory than RA. It also has a much more abrupt onset. It is usually seronegative and has no gender predisposition, and the limited available evidence to date suggests there is no increased risk of this complication in checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients with a history of prior rheumatic disease, according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Delayed onset and resolution of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events

“Onset and resolution of rheumatologic adverse events with immunotherapy may be delayed. This is an important point: While skin rash and colitis often show up pretty early in the course of immunotherapy, some of the arthritic events can happen later. They can actually continue after the immunotherapy is stopped,” the rheumatologist said.

Indeed, a retrospective nationwide Canadian study of 117 patients at nine academic centers who developed 136 rheumatic immune-related adverse events in conjunction with cancer immunotherapy found that the mean time to the first such event was 6.8 months into checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The most common rheumatic complication was symmetric polyarthritis, affecting 45 patients. Other rheumatologic immune-related complications included polymyalgia rheumatica in 17 patients, noninflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms in 18, and myositis in 9.

Seventy-six patients were treated with prednisone for a mean of 8.4 months at a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Forty-two moved up the treatment ladder to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to manage their symptoms. Only two patients required escalation to biologic therapy. A reassuring finding in this relatively small study was that treatment of the patients’ rheumatic complications didn’t appear to worsen the tumor response to immunotherapy: Twenty-three patients experienced tumor progression prior to treatment of their rheumatic disorder, and 14 did so following treatment.
 

Flares of preexisting rheumatic diseases

These tend to occur much earlier in the course of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer than de novo immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events. In a retrospective Australian study of 12 cancer patients with preexisting rheumatic disease before going on a PD-1 inhibitor and 24 others with no such history, all of whom developed rheumatic adverse events while on the checkpoint inhibitor, the mean time to a flare of preexisting rheumatic disease was 6.2 weeks, compared to 21.5 weeks in patients who experienced a de novo rheumatic adverse event.

Dr. Ruderman supports recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy, even though the underlying level of evidence is fairly weak. The recommendations call for the use of csDMARDs when corticosteroids don’t adequately control symptoms. And when the response to csDMARDs is insufficient, the next step is a biologic, preferably a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or interleukin-6 inhibitor.

“At our institution, the oncologists are a little bit nervous about using biologics in cancer patients, but I think more and more they’re going to have to accept it. And so far there isn’t a ton of evidence that suggests the addition of biologics interferes with the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” the rheumatologist said.

He underscored the critical importance of one of the overarching principles of the EULAR guidelines: the need for interdisciplinary coordination between rheumatologists and oncologists regarding the problem of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events.

“Oncologists aren’t good at managing inflammatory arthritis. I think they really need us,” he said.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving a research grant from nine pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Most checkpoint inhibitor–induced rheumatic complications in cancer patients can be treated successfully with corticosteroids, albeit often at considerably higher doses than rheumatologists typically use in managing rheumatoid arthritis, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, observed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“In RA, we’re all used to the idea that 5 or 10 mg of corticosteroids per day can make a tremendous difference. That’s not always the case here. Patients who develop rheumatic immunotherapy-related adverse events often require 20-30 mg/day to get symptoms under control,” according to Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

This may be in part because oncologists typically don’t refer affected patients to rheumatologists early on. Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology groups suggest referral only once a patient develops grade 3 immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events, meaning the symptoms significantly impair daily activities, he explained.

Checkpoint inhibitors, which induce T-cell activation to fight the patient’s malignancy, can produce a plethora of off-target effects. These adverse events may involve the skin, heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, blood, GI tract, and endocrine organs. The drugs also can cause rheumatic or neurologic complications. The most common of these adverse events are colitis and rash. Next most common are arthritis and arthralgia. Rheumatic side effects are most common as a consequence of immunotherapy using a CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitor, but can also occur in association with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and PD-ligand 1 inhibitors. Arthritis and other rheumatic adverse events are more common in patients undergoing combination therapy.

Some form of frank inflammatory arthritis occurs in 5%-10% of cancer patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This can manifest as an RA-like polyarthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, necrotizing myositis, or vasculitis. Arthralgia occurs in up to 40% of treated patients.

This immunotherapy-related arthritis is typically more inflammatory than RA. It also has a much more abrupt onset. It is usually seronegative and has no gender predisposition, and the limited available evidence to date suggests there is no increased risk of this complication in checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients with a history of prior rheumatic disease, according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Delayed onset and resolution of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events

“Onset and resolution of rheumatologic adverse events with immunotherapy may be delayed. This is an important point: While skin rash and colitis often show up pretty early in the course of immunotherapy, some of the arthritic events can happen later. They can actually continue after the immunotherapy is stopped,” the rheumatologist said.

Indeed, a retrospective nationwide Canadian study of 117 patients at nine academic centers who developed 136 rheumatic immune-related adverse events in conjunction with cancer immunotherapy found that the mean time to the first such event was 6.8 months into checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The most common rheumatic complication was symmetric polyarthritis, affecting 45 patients. Other rheumatologic immune-related complications included polymyalgia rheumatica in 17 patients, noninflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms in 18, and myositis in 9.

Seventy-six patients were treated with prednisone for a mean of 8.4 months at a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Forty-two moved up the treatment ladder to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to manage their symptoms. Only two patients required escalation to biologic therapy. A reassuring finding in this relatively small study was that treatment of the patients’ rheumatic complications didn’t appear to worsen the tumor response to immunotherapy: Twenty-three patients experienced tumor progression prior to treatment of their rheumatic disorder, and 14 did so following treatment.
 

Flares of preexisting rheumatic diseases

These tend to occur much earlier in the course of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer than de novo immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events. In a retrospective Australian study of 12 cancer patients with preexisting rheumatic disease before going on a PD-1 inhibitor and 24 others with no such history, all of whom developed rheumatic adverse events while on the checkpoint inhibitor, the mean time to a flare of preexisting rheumatic disease was 6.2 weeks, compared to 21.5 weeks in patients who experienced a de novo rheumatic adverse event.

Dr. Ruderman supports recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy, even though the underlying level of evidence is fairly weak. The recommendations call for the use of csDMARDs when corticosteroids don’t adequately control symptoms. And when the response to csDMARDs is insufficient, the next step is a biologic, preferably a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or interleukin-6 inhibitor.

“At our institution, the oncologists are a little bit nervous about using biologics in cancer patients, but I think more and more they’re going to have to accept it. And so far there isn’t a ton of evidence that suggests the addition of biologics interferes with the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” the rheumatologist said.

He underscored the critical importance of one of the overarching principles of the EULAR guidelines: the need for interdisciplinary coordination between rheumatologists and oncologists regarding the problem of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events.

“Oncologists aren’t good at managing inflammatory arthritis. I think they really need us,” he said.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving a research grant from nine pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Most checkpoint inhibitor–induced rheumatic complications in cancer patients can be treated successfully with corticosteroids, albeit often at considerably higher doses than rheumatologists typically use in managing rheumatoid arthritis, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, observed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“In RA, we’re all used to the idea that 5 or 10 mg of corticosteroids per day can make a tremendous difference. That’s not always the case here. Patients who develop rheumatic immunotherapy-related adverse events often require 20-30 mg/day to get symptoms under control,” according to Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

This may be in part because oncologists typically don’t refer affected patients to rheumatologists early on. Guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and other oncology groups suggest referral only once a patient develops grade 3 immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events, meaning the symptoms significantly impair daily activities, he explained.

Checkpoint inhibitors, which induce T-cell activation to fight the patient’s malignancy, can produce a plethora of off-target effects. These adverse events may involve the skin, heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, blood, GI tract, and endocrine organs. The drugs also can cause rheumatic or neurologic complications. The most common of these adverse events are colitis and rash. Next most common are arthritis and arthralgia. Rheumatic side effects are most common as a consequence of immunotherapy using a CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4) inhibitor, but can also occur in association with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors and PD-ligand 1 inhibitors. Arthritis and other rheumatic adverse events are more common in patients undergoing combination therapy.

Some form of frank inflammatory arthritis occurs in 5%-10% of cancer patients undergoing checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This can manifest as an RA-like polyarthritis, spondyloarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, necrotizing myositis, or vasculitis. Arthralgia occurs in up to 40% of treated patients.

This immunotherapy-related arthritis is typically more inflammatory than RA. It also has a much more abrupt onset. It is usually seronegative and has no gender predisposition, and the limited available evidence to date suggests there is no increased risk of this complication in checkpoint inhibitor–treated patients with a history of prior rheumatic disease, according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Delayed onset and resolution of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events

“Onset and resolution of rheumatologic adverse events with immunotherapy may be delayed. This is an important point: While skin rash and colitis often show up pretty early in the course of immunotherapy, some of the arthritic events can happen later. They can actually continue after the immunotherapy is stopped,” the rheumatologist said.

Indeed, a retrospective nationwide Canadian study of 117 patients at nine academic centers who developed 136 rheumatic immune-related adverse events in conjunction with cancer immunotherapy found that the mean time to the first such event was 6.8 months into checkpoint inhibitor therapy. The most common rheumatic complication was symmetric polyarthritis, affecting 45 patients. Other rheumatologic immune-related complications included polymyalgia rheumatica in 17 patients, noninflammatory musculoskeletal symptoms in 18, and myositis in 9.

Seventy-six patients were treated with prednisone for a mean of 8.4 months at a maximum dose of 60 mg/day. Forty-two moved up the treatment ladder to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to manage their symptoms. Only two patients required escalation to biologic therapy. A reassuring finding in this relatively small study was that treatment of the patients’ rheumatic complications didn’t appear to worsen the tumor response to immunotherapy: Twenty-three patients experienced tumor progression prior to treatment of their rheumatic disorder, and 14 did so following treatment.
 

Flares of preexisting rheumatic diseases

These tend to occur much earlier in the course of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer than de novo immunotherapy-related rheumatic adverse events. In a retrospective Australian study of 12 cancer patients with preexisting rheumatic disease before going on a PD-1 inhibitor and 24 others with no such history, all of whom developed rheumatic adverse events while on the checkpoint inhibitor, the mean time to a flare of preexisting rheumatic disease was 6.2 weeks, compared to 21.5 weeks in patients who experienced a de novo rheumatic adverse event.

Dr. Ruderman supports recommendations from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) for the management of rheumatic immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy, even though the underlying level of evidence is fairly weak. The recommendations call for the use of csDMARDs when corticosteroids don’t adequately control symptoms. And when the response to csDMARDs is insufficient, the next step is a biologic, preferably a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or interleukin-6 inhibitor.

“At our institution, the oncologists are a little bit nervous about using biologics in cancer patients, but I think more and more they’re going to have to accept it. And so far there isn’t a ton of evidence that suggests the addition of biologics interferes with the efficacy of the immunotherapy,” the rheumatologist said.

He underscored the critical importance of one of the overarching principles of the EULAR guidelines: the need for interdisciplinary coordination between rheumatologists and oncologists regarding the problem of rheumatologic immune-related adverse events.

“Oncologists aren’t good at managing inflammatory arthritis. I think they really need us,” he said.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant to and/or receiving a research grant from nine pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.

Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
 

RA improvement on an ITIS diet

Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.

However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.

The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.

As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.

At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.

Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.

The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.

Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.

Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.

“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.

If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.

In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.

“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.

American RA patients embrace turmeric

Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.

Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.

Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
 

What about osteoarthritis?

Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.

Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.

Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.

Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
 

[email protected]

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.

Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
 

RA improvement on an ITIS diet

Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.

However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.

The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.

As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.

At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.

Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.

The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.

Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.

Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.

“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.

If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.

In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.

“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.

American RA patients embrace turmeric

Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.

Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.

Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
 

What about osteoarthritis?

Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.

Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.

Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.

Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
 

[email protected]

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.

Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
 

RA improvement on an ITIS diet

Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.

However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.

The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.

As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.

At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.

Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.

The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.

Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.

Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.

“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.

If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.

In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.

“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.

American RA patients embrace turmeric

Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.

Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.

Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
 

What about osteoarthritis?

Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.

Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.

Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.

Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
 

[email protected]

Only about 30% or fewer of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) on therapy achieve disease remission by any definition. One reason for this may be inadequate attention to common comorbid conditions, Alexis Ogdie, MD, MSCE, declared at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Courtesy Dr. Alexis Ogdie

“I believe that addressing off-target aspects of disease is really important to improving the patient experience of their disease. We might need to target these directly in order to improve outcomes,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who coauthored the current American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation PsA guidelines.

Since rheumatologists are by now well informed about the increased cardiovascular risk associated with PsA, she focused on two common comorbidities that get less attention, both of which are associated with worse clinical outcomes in PsA: obesity and mental health issues.
 

Anxiety and depression

Dr. Ogdie was first author of a large, population-based, longitudinal cohort study of cause-specific mortality in 8,706 U.K. patients with PsA, 41,752 with RA, and more than 81,000 controls. Particularly striking was the finding of elevated mortality because of suicide in the rheumatic disease patients: a 203% increased risk in the PsA population, compared with the general population, and a 147% greater risk in patients with RA.

Overall, 30%-40% of PsA patients have comorbid depression and/or anxiety.

“That’s pretty striking. It’s also true for rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. And if you’re depressed, you’re much less likely to respond to therapy in the way that we are measuring response to therapy,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Her approach to screening for depression and anxiety in her PsA patients, and indeed in all her other patients, is to begin by normalizing the topic, explaining to them that these affective disorders are common among patients with these disorders. She lets her patients know they can talk to her about it. And she informs them that, while effective treatment of their rheumatic disease may improve their depression or anxiety, managing those is also important for improving their disease. Additionally, understanding whether depression is present is important prior to prescribing certain medications. Apremilast (Otezla), for example, can worsen preexisting depression.

“Ask about signs and symptoms of depression,” Dr. Ogdie urged her colleagues. “I do this at every single visit in my review of symptoms. This is one I don’t skip. I ask: ‘Do you have any symptoms of depression or anxiety?’ ”

Structured evidence-based screening tools, many of which are well suited for completion during a patient’s preappointment check-in survey, include the Patient Health Questionnaire–2, the PHQ-9, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System–10, PROMIS–Depression, and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3.

“I also really like the PROMIS-29. It covers many domains of interest: depression and anxiety, sleep, fatigue, pain, physical function. It gives a lot of information about what’s going on in a patient’s life right now,” according to the rheumatologist.

The main thing is to regularly screen for anxiety and depression and then refer symptomatic patients for further assessment and treatment. This is not something that all rheumatologists have been trained to do.

Obesity

Dr. Ogdie was lead author of a national CORRONA Registry study which concluded that obese patients with PsA were only half as likely to achieve remission on a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, compared with nonobese patients. She believes the same holds true for all other types of therapy: Across the board, obesity is associated with a poor response. And obesity is much more common in PsA patients than the general population in every age group. Moreover, obesity is associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease and is associated with fatty liver disease, two other major comorbid conditions in the PsA population.

The CORRONA Registry findings are supportive of an earlier Italian prospective, observational study of 135 obese and an equal number of normal-weight PsA patients, all of whom started on a TNF inhibitor and were followed for 24 months. In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, obesity was independently associated with a 390% higher risk of not achieving minimal disease activity.

The same Italian group subsequently conducted a prospective dietary intervention study in 138 overweight or obese patients with PsA starting anti-TNF therapy. A total of 59% of participants randomized to either of the two dietary interventions experienced at least a 5% weight loss at 6 months. The key study finding: Compared with the subjects with less than 5% weight loss, those with 5%-10% weight loss were 275% more likely to achieve minimal disease activity at 6 months, and in those with greater than 10% weight loss the likelihood of attaining minimal disease activity increased by 567%.

“We’re talking about a disease where treatments tested in clinical trials have odds ratios in the 1.2 range, compared with other therapies, so this is a really striking difference,” she observed.

Several studies have demonstrated that obesity in psoriasis patients is a risk factor for developing PsA. Recently, U.K. investigators took things a step further, reporting in a huge observational study that obese or overweight psoriasis patients who reduced their body mass index over a 10-year period had a corresponding reduction in the risk of developing PsA, compared with overweight or obese psoriasis patients whose BMI remained steady over the same period.

What’s needed now is access to programs to help patients with PsA lose weight. Health insurers are often unwilling to provide coverage. “We have a really tough time getting the patients in to see a nutritionist unless they’re willing to pay out of pocket,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Physical activity is an important element in successful weight loss. It also is recommended in practice guidelines for patients with inflammatory arthritis because of its salutary effects on disease activity scores, pain and stiffness, sleep, and quality of life. But a recent survey conducted by Dr. Ogdie and coworkers concluded that patients with PsA and other forms of inflammatory arthritis don’t receive much exercise guidance from their rheumatologists. About 60% of subjects were inactive. Those who were physically active typically engaged in aerobic exercise but were much less likely to do the other guideline-recommended forms of exercise, namely flexibility, balance, and resistance training. The patients’ report of low engagement of their physicians “suggests an opportunity for more prescriptive exercise discussions,” according to the investigators.

Diabetes, a critical risk factor for cardiovascular disease, occurs at an increased incidence in PsA. This was demonstrated in a U.K. cohort study coauthored by Dr. Ogdie. The study, which included nearly 4,200 individuals with PsA, concluded that they had a 43% greater incidence of diabetes than the general population in an analysis adjusted for body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, and demographics.

New-onset diabetes can be readily picked up by rheumatologists based upon the laboratory work they often order at patient office visits, or during their review of symptoms, she noted, and added that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends ordering a hemoglobin A1c test every 3 years.

Dr. Ogdie reported receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Her research is also funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

[email protected]

Only about 30% or fewer of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) on therapy achieve disease remission by any definition. One reason for this may be inadequate attention to common comorbid conditions, Alexis Ogdie, MD, MSCE, declared at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Courtesy Dr. Alexis Ogdie

“I believe that addressing off-target aspects of disease is really important to improving the patient experience of their disease. We might need to target these directly in order to improve outcomes,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who coauthored the current American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation PsA guidelines.

Since rheumatologists are by now well informed about the increased cardiovascular risk associated with PsA, she focused on two common comorbidities that get less attention, both of which are associated with worse clinical outcomes in PsA: obesity and mental health issues.
 

Anxiety and depression

Dr. Ogdie was first author of a large, population-based, longitudinal cohort study of cause-specific mortality in 8,706 U.K. patients with PsA, 41,752 with RA, and more than 81,000 controls. Particularly striking was the finding of elevated mortality because of suicide in the rheumatic disease patients: a 203% increased risk in the PsA population, compared with the general population, and a 147% greater risk in patients with RA.

Overall, 30%-40% of PsA patients have comorbid depression and/or anxiety.

“That’s pretty striking. It’s also true for rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. And if you’re depressed, you’re much less likely to respond to therapy in the way that we are measuring response to therapy,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Her approach to screening for depression and anxiety in her PsA patients, and indeed in all her other patients, is to begin by normalizing the topic, explaining to them that these affective disorders are common among patients with these disorders. She lets her patients know they can talk to her about it. And she informs them that, while effective treatment of their rheumatic disease may improve their depression or anxiety, managing those is also important for improving their disease. Additionally, understanding whether depression is present is important prior to prescribing certain medications. Apremilast (Otezla), for example, can worsen preexisting depression.

“Ask about signs and symptoms of depression,” Dr. Ogdie urged her colleagues. “I do this at every single visit in my review of symptoms. This is one I don’t skip. I ask: ‘Do you have any symptoms of depression or anxiety?’ ”

Structured evidence-based screening tools, many of which are well suited for completion during a patient’s preappointment check-in survey, include the Patient Health Questionnaire–2, the PHQ-9, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System–10, PROMIS–Depression, and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3.

“I also really like the PROMIS-29. It covers many domains of interest: depression and anxiety, sleep, fatigue, pain, physical function. It gives a lot of information about what’s going on in a patient’s life right now,” according to the rheumatologist.

The main thing is to regularly screen for anxiety and depression and then refer symptomatic patients for further assessment and treatment. This is not something that all rheumatologists have been trained to do.

Obesity

Dr. Ogdie was lead author of a national CORRONA Registry study which concluded that obese patients with PsA were only half as likely to achieve remission on a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, compared with nonobese patients. She believes the same holds true for all other types of therapy: Across the board, obesity is associated with a poor response. And obesity is much more common in PsA patients than the general population in every age group. Moreover, obesity is associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease and is associated with fatty liver disease, two other major comorbid conditions in the PsA population.

The CORRONA Registry findings are supportive of an earlier Italian prospective, observational study of 135 obese and an equal number of normal-weight PsA patients, all of whom started on a TNF inhibitor and were followed for 24 months. In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, obesity was independently associated with a 390% higher risk of not achieving minimal disease activity.

The same Italian group subsequently conducted a prospective dietary intervention study in 138 overweight or obese patients with PsA starting anti-TNF therapy. A total of 59% of participants randomized to either of the two dietary interventions experienced at least a 5% weight loss at 6 months. The key study finding: Compared with the subjects with less than 5% weight loss, those with 5%-10% weight loss were 275% more likely to achieve minimal disease activity at 6 months, and in those with greater than 10% weight loss the likelihood of attaining minimal disease activity increased by 567%.

“We’re talking about a disease where treatments tested in clinical trials have odds ratios in the 1.2 range, compared with other therapies, so this is a really striking difference,” she observed.

Several studies have demonstrated that obesity in psoriasis patients is a risk factor for developing PsA. Recently, U.K. investigators took things a step further, reporting in a huge observational study that obese or overweight psoriasis patients who reduced their body mass index over a 10-year period had a corresponding reduction in the risk of developing PsA, compared with overweight or obese psoriasis patients whose BMI remained steady over the same period.

What’s needed now is access to programs to help patients with PsA lose weight. Health insurers are often unwilling to provide coverage. “We have a really tough time getting the patients in to see a nutritionist unless they’re willing to pay out of pocket,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Physical activity is an important element in successful weight loss. It also is recommended in practice guidelines for patients with inflammatory arthritis because of its salutary effects on disease activity scores, pain and stiffness, sleep, and quality of life. But a recent survey conducted by Dr. Ogdie and coworkers concluded that patients with PsA and other forms of inflammatory arthritis don’t receive much exercise guidance from their rheumatologists. About 60% of subjects were inactive. Those who were physically active typically engaged in aerobic exercise but were much less likely to do the other guideline-recommended forms of exercise, namely flexibility, balance, and resistance training. The patients’ report of low engagement of their physicians “suggests an opportunity for more prescriptive exercise discussions,” according to the investigators.

Diabetes, a critical risk factor for cardiovascular disease, occurs at an increased incidence in PsA. This was demonstrated in a U.K. cohort study coauthored by Dr. Ogdie. The study, which included nearly 4,200 individuals with PsA, concluded that they had a 43% greater incidence of diabetes than the general population in an analysis adjusted for body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, and demographics.

New-onset diabetes can be readily picked up by rheumatologists based upon the laboratory work they often order at patient office visits, or during their review of symptoms, she noted, and added that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends ordering a hemoglobin A1c test every 3 years.

Dr. Ogdie reported receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Her research is also funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

[email protected]

Only about 30% or fewer of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) on therapy achieve disease remission by any definition. One reason for this may be inadequate attention to common comorbid conditions, Alexis Ogdie, MD, MSCE, declared at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Courtesy Dr. Alexis Ogdie

“I believe that addressing off-target aspects of disease is really important to improving the patient experience of their disease. We might need to target these directly in order to improve outcomes,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who coauthored the current American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation PsA guidelines.

Since rheumatologists are by now well informed about the increased cardiovascular risk associated with PsA, she focused on two common comorbidities that get less attention, both of which are associated with worse clinical outcomes in PsA: obesity and mental health issues.
 

Anxiety and depression

Dr. Ogdie was first author of a large, population-based, longitudinal cohort study of cause-specific mortality in 8,706 U.K. patients with PsA, 41,752 with RA, and more than 81,000 controls. Particularly striking was the finding of elevated mortality because of suicide in the rheumatic disease patients: a 203% increased risk in the PsA population, compared with the general population, and a 147% greater risk in patients with RA.

Overall, 30%-40% of PsA patients have comorbid depression and/or anxiety.

“That’s pretty striking. It’s also true for rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. And if you’re depressed, you’re much less likely to respond to therapy in the way that we are measuring response to therapy,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Her approach to screening for depression and anxiety in her PsA patients, and indeed in all her other patients, is to begin by normalizing the topic, explaining to them that these affective disorders are common among patients with these disorders. She lets her patients know they can talk to her about it. And she informs them that, while effective treatment of their rheumatic disease may improve their depression or anxiety, managing those is also important for improving their disease. Additionally, understanding whether depression is present is important prior to prescribing certain medications. Apremilast (Otezla), for example, can worsen preexisting depression.

“Ask about signs and symptoms of depression,” Dr. Ogdie urged her colleagues. “I do this at every single visit in my review of symptoms. This is one I don’t skip. I ask: ‘Do you have any symptoms of depression or anxiety?’ ”

Structured evidence-based screening tools, many of which are well suited for completion during a patient’s preappointment check-in survey, include the Patient Health Questionnaire–2, the PHQ-9, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System–10, PROMIS–Depression, and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3.

“I also really like the PROMIS-29. It covers many domains of interest: depression and anxiety, sleep, fatigue, pain, physical function. It gives a lot of information about what’s going on in a patient’s life right now,” according to the rheumatologist.

The main thing is to regularly screen for anxiety and depression and then refer symptomatic patients for further assessment and treatment. This is not something that all rheumatologists have been trained to do.

Obesity

Dr. Ogdie was lead author of a national CORRONA Registry study which concluded that obese patients with PsA were only half as likely to achieve remission on a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, compared with nonobese patients. She believes the same holds true for all other types of therapy: Across the board, obesity is associated with a poor response. And obesity is much more common in PsA patients than the general population in every age group. Moreover, obesity is associated with risk factors for cardiovascular disease and is associated with fatty liver disease, two other major comorbid conditions in the PsA population.

The CORRONA Registry findings are supportive of an earlier Italian prospective, observational study of 135 obese and an equal number of normal-weight PsA patients, all of whom started on a TNF inhibitor and were followed for 24 months. In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, obesity was independently associated with a 390% higher risk of not achieving minimal disease activity.

The same Italian group subsequently conducted a prospective dietary intervention study in 138 overweight or obese patients with PsA starting anti-TNF therapy. A total of 59% of participants randomized to either of the two dietary interventions experienced at least a 5% weight loss at 6 months. The key study finding: Compared with the subjects with less than 5% weight loss, those with 5%-10% weight loss were 275% more likely to achieve minimal disease activity at 6 months, and in those with greater than 10% weight loss the likelihood of attaining minimal disease activity increased by 567%.

“We’re talking about a disease where treatments tested in clinical trials have odds ratios in the 1.2 range, compared with other therapies, so this is a really striking difference,” she observed.

Several studies have demonstrated that obesity in psoriasis patients is a risk factor for developing PsA. Recently, U.K. investigators took things a step further, reporting in a huge observational study that obese or overweight psoriasis patients who reduced their body mass index over a 10-year period had a corresponding reduction in the risk of developing PsA, compared with overweight or obese psoriasis patients whose BMI remained steady over the same period.

What’s needed now is access to programs to help patients with PsA lose weight. Health insurers are often unwilling to provide coverage. “We have a really tough time getting the patients in to see a nutritionist unless they’re willing to pay out of pocket,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Physical activity is an important element in successful weight loss. It also is recommended in practice guidelines for patients with inflammatory arthritis because of its salutary effects on disease activity scores, pain and stiffness, sleep, and quality of life. But a recent survey conducted by Dr. Ogdie and coworkers concluded that patients with PsA and other forms of inflammatory arthritis don’t receive much exercise guidance from their rheumatologists. About 60% of subjects were inactive. Those who were physically active typically engaged in aerobic exercise but were much less likely to do the other guideline-recommended forms of exercise, namely flexibility, balance, and resistance training. The patients’ report of low engagement of their physicians “suggests an opportunity for more prescriptive exercise discussions,” according to the investigators.

Diabetes, a critical risk factor for cardiovascular disease, occurs at an increased incidence in PsA. This was demonstrated in a U.K. cohort study coauthored by Dr. Ogdie. The study, which included nearly 4,200 individuals with PsA, concluded that they had a 43% greater incidence of diabetes than the general population in an analysis adjusted for body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, and demographics.

New-onset diabetes can be readily picked up by rheumatologists based upon the laboratory work they often order at patient office visits, or during their review of symptoms, she noted, and added that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends ordering a hemoglobin A1c test every 3 years.

Dr. Ogdie reported receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Her research is also funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

A massive Swedish cohort study suggesting that biologic agents reduce the known excess risk of lymphoma in patients with rheumatoid arthritis was hailed as one of the high points of the last year by speakers at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The speakers gave additional shout-outs regarding other key developments in RA during the pandemic year, including two huge studies showing that even low-dose corticosteroids at 5 mg/day or less carry the price of increased risk of cardiovascular disease and serious infections; Swedish data showing that RA disease activity can be used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification; evidence from the venerable BeST study showing at 17 years of follow-up that treat-to-target strategies didn’t prevent an increased mortality risk of RA compared to the general population; and a signal that artificial intelligence using machine learning will become useful in clinical practice sooner than many realize.

Also, the speakers offered kudos to the investigators in the SEAM-RA trial, whose results they expect to be practice changing. In addition, they praised the SELECT-CHOICE trial for providing insight into the relative safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abatacept (Orencia) as second- or third-line therapy in RA. And they warned their colleagues of rocky upcoming months for tofacitinib (Xeljanz) as the Food and Drug Administration reviews concerning new data from a long-term postmarketing safety trial.
 

Swedes show biologics may reduce excess lymphoma risk in RA

Decades ago, Swedish investigators harnessed their nation’s comprehensive linked health registries to demonstrate that patients with RA are inherently at greater risk for developing lymphoma. Now the Swedes have used the registries to identify a strong signal that this excess risk of lymphoma is reduced in RA patients treated with biologic drugs.

The study included 16,392 RA patients who initiated treatment with a biologic during the study period, 55,253 who were biologic-naive, and 229,047 age- and sex-matched controls from the general population. During the years 2006-2016, there was an adjusted 31% reduction in the risk of incident lymphoma in RA patients who started a first biologic agent, compared with those who did not, and a 54% reduction in lymphoma in biologic-treated patients, compared with those who switched from one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) to another.

Moreover, while RA patients with 0-2 years of accumulated time on biologics were at a statistically significant 3.42-fold increased risk of lymphoma, compared with the matched general population, that risk shrunk with longer exposure to these medications, dropping to a nonsignificant 1.53-fold increase with 3-4 years of biologic exposure and a 1.04-fold risk with 5 years or more. The lymphoma risks didn’t vary significantly among the TNF inhibitors, nor with the use of TNF inhibitors versus other biologics.

“I think this is really quite encouraging,” said John J. Cush, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas. “If the lymphoma risk was related to inflammation, I think you’d see results like this. It really does speak to the fact that control of inflammation over time does lessen one’s risk of cancer.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, observed that patients with RA continue to ask their rheumatologists if going on a TNF inhibitor will increase their risk of lymphoma, so these Swedish data are going to be useful in conversations in the clinic.

“I thought this study was very exciting,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS. “Maybe we can make the case now that the longer you’re on biologic therapies and the more recently you’re being treated, the better you do in terms of lymphoma risk.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Beware underappreciated hazards of very-low-dose glucocorticoids

The increased risk of osteoporotic fractures associated with corticosteroid therapy gets tons of attention. But the past year brought two cautionary studies that newly identified significantly increased risks of cardiovascular events and serious infection as well, even at doses of less than 5 mg/day, which have traditionally been believed safe long term.

Investigators at the University of Leeds (England) conducted a population-based cohort study in which they used the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze the oral corticosteroid dose-dependent cardiovascular risk in 25,324 patients with RA and 62,470 with five other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: inflammatory bowel disease, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vasculitis. None had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. The analysis accounted for changes in oral steroid dose over time and for the use of potentially confounding medications.

Over a median 5 years of follow-up, a strong steroid dose-dependent risk of acute MI, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, and abdominal aortic aneurysm was evident in patients with any of the six of the immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The 1-year adjusted cumulative risk of major adverse cardiovascular events jumped from 1.4% during periods of nonuse to 8.9% at a daily dose of 25 mg or more. Notably, when patients were on oral steroids at doses less than 5 mg/day, their risk of one or more of these major adverse cardiovascular events was 74% greater than when off steroids.

A separate red flag regarding low-dose glucocorticoids was raised by a retrospective cohort study of the 1-year risk of hospitalization for serious infection in 172,041 RA patients in the Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2015. After 6 months of stable use of DMARDs, 47.1% of those patients were on corticosteroids. Their 1-year cumulative incidence of severe infection resulting in hospitalization was 11% if their dose was 5 mg/day or less, 14.4% at >5 to 10 mg/day, and 17.7% at >10 mg/day, all significantly greater than the 8.6% rate in patients not on steroids. The same pattern held true when the investigators separately scrutinized 44,118 RA patients in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database for the years 2006-2015.

“This is a really important paper telling us what you’ve always known, which is that there’s a dose-related increase in serious infections in people on steroids. Everybody knows that, but usually people think of 10 mg/day and above,” Dr. Cush said. “This is a little bit sobering for those of you who think, ‘Well, I’m doing OK using 2.5 or 4 mg/day.’ In this study, even at doses of 5 mg/day or less, there’s a significant increase in serious hospitalizable infections.”

Taken together, the message of these two huge studies is clear, he added: “The idea is we probably shouldn’t be using steroids.”

Given the large array of therapies now available to address various aspects of the inflammatory and immune responses in RA, Dr. Kavanaugh asked, why do so many rheumatologists still maintain their patients on low-dose steroids?

”Because when we find something that works, we stick to it,” Dr. Cush replied.

RA disease activity predicts VTE risk

The risk of VTE climbs with RA disease activity such that patients with high disease activity – defined using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate-based Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28-ESR) – have double the VTE risk of those in disease remission, according to a Swedish nationwide cohort study using data from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. The investigators concluded that RA disease activity can be used in clinical practice as an additional tool for VTE risk stratification, alongside such established risk factors as immobilization, age, surgery, and comorbid conditions.

The study included 46,316 patients with RA who collectively experienced 2,241 VTE events within 1 year after one of their collective 322,601 visits to their rheumatologist. The overall cumulative 1-year incidence of VTE in the RA population was 0.71%, versus 0.36% in a control group composed of 215,843 randomly selected age- and sex-matched individuals drawn from the general Swedish population. That translates to an adjusted 1.88-fold increased risk in the RA group.

The VTE incidence was 0.52% in the year following a rheumatologist visit at which RA patients were found to be in DAS28-ESR remission. The adjusted risk for VTE climbed significantly in stepwise fashion with increasing disease activity: 12% greater risk with DAS28-ESR low disease activity, 48% greater risk with moderate disease activity, and 2.03-fold greater risk with high disease activity.
 

SEAM-RA shows which drug to withdraw to maintain remission gained on combo therapy

The SEAM-RA trial presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and published shortly afterward in Arthritis & Rheumatology provides guidance on how to best implement a drug tapering strategy in patients who have achieved sustained remission on combination therapy with etanercept (Enbrel) and methotrexate. The purpose of such a strategy is to reduce patients’ medication burden and exposure to safety concerns inherent in continuing therapy. SEAM-RA included 371 RA patients in sustained disease remission during 24 weeks of open-label treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate. At that point, they were randomized 2:2:1 to 48 weeks of double-blind methotrexate monotherapy with etanercept withdrawal, etanercept monotherapy, or continued combination therapy. Those who experienced disease worsening on double-blind monotherapy were eligible for combination rescue therapy with both drugs.

The primary endpoint was maintenance of remission without disease worsening at week 48. This was accomplished in 52.9% of the combination therapy group, with a similar 49.5% success rate in patients on etanercept monotherapy, both significantly better than the 28.7% rate with methotrexate monotherapy. The inference is that biologic monotherapy might be an advantageous strategy for maintenance after achieving prolonged remission on combination therapy.

“This study could impact guidelines,” Dr. Cush predicted.

Among the key study findings, in his view, was that disease worsening occurred early following the switch to methotrexate monotherapy: typically within the first 2-4 weeks. And combination rescue therapy worked: Almost 75% of patients were able to recapture disease remission regardless of which drug they’d been on as monotherapy, and almost 90% of patients on rescue therapy achieved a low-disease-activity state.

Still, just over half of patients were able to maintain long-term remission after downshifting to etanercept monotherapy, Dr. Kavanaugh noted. “The bedeviling thing is we don’t know which patients can do this,” he said.

This was made abundantly clear in PREDICTRA, a phase 4, double-blind study in which 122 RA patients in sustained remission on 40 mg of adalimumab (Humira) every 2 weeks were randomized 5:1 to adalimumab taper or withdrawal for 36 weeks. Overall, 36% of the taper group and 45% of those who halted the biologic flared within 36 weeks. Nothing on an extensive list of candidate baseline predictors predicted flare in either group.

”I think the interesting thing here is that nothing predicted it, not drug levels, antidrug antibodies, not even MRI evidence of inflammation while in remission. The lack of predictors of who’s going to do well off therapy makes us crazy,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. Also noteworthy was that when full-dose, open-label adalimumab was reinstituted as rescue therapy in patients who flared, only half of them regained remission during the following 4 months, he observed.

Dr. Cush didn’t mince words regarding his view of the concept underlying PREDICTRA.

“Why are we even talking about this? We spend our whole lives trying to get these patients into remission, we’re heavily invested in combination therapy, we’re very proud of our great successes, and now we want to find data to condone, ‘Let’s get off drug therapy?’ ” he argued.

“There are untold consequences to this,” the rheumatologist continued. “There are cardiovascular consequences, and we’ve seen the x-ray studies that show that patients may be doing clinically better but still have x-ray worsening because you’ve withdrawn the TNF inhibitor. I think this is all nonsense, and I’m totally against it.”

Making a SELECT-CHOICE in refractory RA

In patients whose RA has proved refractory to one or more biologics, opting for the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib as next-line therapy is significantly more effective than turning to the T-cell costimulation modulator abatacept, but at the cost of a doubled risk of severe adverse events, according to the findings of the phase 3, double-blind, 24-week, randomized SELECT-CHOICE trial.

In this 612-patient study, the week-12 clinical remission rate as defined by a C-reactive protein (CRP)-based DAS28 below 2.6 was 30% in the upadacitinib arm, compared to 13.3% with abatacept. At week 24, the remission rates were 46% and 31%, respectively. However, the severe adverse event rate was 6.3% in the upadacitinib group, including one death, one stroke, and two cases of VTE, compared to 3.2% with abatacept.

“Maybe this is a win for upadacitinib, but abatacept is a win when it comes to safety,” Dr. Cush said. “So the question is, when you’re making your second or third change in a biologic DMARD, are you going for safety or are you going for efficacy?”
 

Make way for machine learning

Studies of machine learning and artificial intelligence aimed at developing a more individualized treatment approach are popping up with increasing frequency at the major rheumatology meetings.

“This is really, I think, the future because for most of us, in most of our choices, as great as all of us are in managing RA, it is a crystal ball and a coin toss as to whether our next therapy is going to work,” Dr. Cush said.

He highlighted a study presented at the 2020 ACR annual meeting as an example of how machine learning can generate better evidence for selecting therapies. An international team of investigators used artificial intelligence to develop a simple rule to predict an RA patient’s likely response to the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor sarilumab (Kevzara). The researchers developed a list of 42 candidate predictors of an ACR20 response, including demographics, biomarkers, and disease activity scores, then applied machine learning to data from the 1,197-patient, phase 3 MOBILITY trial of sarilumab versus placebo in order to generate a predictive rule of better outcomes.

Out of the 42 candidate predictive values, the best predictive rule turned out to be the combination of the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and a baseline CRP level greater than 12.3 mg/L. This rule was then put to the test using data from four phase 3 clinical trials in which 34%-51% of RA patients randomized to sarilumab were rule-positive. The rule-positive patients had worse baseline prognostic factors and more severe RA. Yet rule-positive patients had a better outcome than that of those who were rule-negative. For example, a week-24 ACR70 response was achieved in 34% of rule-positive patients, nearly fivefold greater than the 7% rate in the rule-negative group.
 

Treat-to-target strategies don’t tame excess mortality in RA

At a mean of 17 years of follow-up in the Dutch BeST study – a pioneering treat-to-target study in RA – patients with early RA who were assigned to one of four treat-to-target strategies for 10 years showed excess mortality compared to the general age- and sex-matched Dutch population, Johanna M. Maassen, MD, reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Indeed, mortality was 37% higher in the RA patients than in the comparator population, with no significant differences in survival curves evident between the four tight-control strategies.

“This raises the question of whether survival in patients not strictly treated to target would have been even lower. Are we not doing as well as we think we’re doing?” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

“This is very sobering. It tells us we really do need to be better at managing RA. And I would say based on this data we need to be better at managing RA really early to get better outcomes really late,” said Dr. Cush. “The damage that led to cardiovascular risk could have been incurred earlier on and then carried forward when you look out to 15-20 years.”
 

More trouble for tofacitinib

Tofacitinib faces an uncertain future following Pfizer’s late-January press release announcing that the JAK inhibitor failed to meet noninferiority compared to anti-TNF therapy in terms of adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and adjudicated malignancies in an FDA-mandated postmarketing safety study. The study, known as ORAL Surveillance, or Study A3921133 – ‘1133’ for short – randomized 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to tofacitinib at 5 or 10 mg twice daily or to a TNF inhibitor.

The Pfizer press release was soon followed by an FDA safety warning and announcement that the agency is reviewing the full study data before making any final recommendations. The FDA already requires black box warnings for tofacitinib regarding increased risks of blood clots and death, but only at the 10-mg twice-daily dose. In the ORAL Surveillance study, however, the primary endpoint was noninferiority of the combined tofacitinib doses, and there was no evidence of a difference in endpoints between the 5- and 10-mg twice-daily doses.

Only the topline results released in the Pfizer press release are publicly available so far. The combined tofacitinib doses were associated with a 1.33-fold greater risk of adjudicated MACE and a 1.48-fold increase in adjudicated malignancies other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, compared to adalimumab or etanercept.

The jury is still out pending release of the full study data, in Dr. Kavanaugh’s view.

“When I get to look at the data, I want to see who are the people who had the events, their characteristics,” he said.

Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, MD, said the study’s topline results “make me a little nervous.

“The effect size is pretty large. It’s in the 1.4 range, which means there might be something there for real,” said Dr. Ogdie-Beatty, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

A massive Swedish cohort study suggesting that biologic agents reduce the known excess risk of lymphoma in patients with rheumatoid arthritis was hailed as one of the high points of the last year by speakers at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The speakers gave additional shout-outs regarding other key developments in RA during the pandemic year, including two huge studies showing that even low-dose corticosteroids at 5 mg/day or less carry the price of increased risk of cardiovascular disease and serious infections; Swedish data showing that RA disease activity can be used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification; evidence from the venerable BeST study showing at 17 years of follow-up that treat-to-target strategies didn’t prevent an increased mortality risk of RA compared to the general population; and a signal that artificial intelligence using machine learning will become useful in clinical practice sooner than many realize.

Also, the speakers offered kudos to the investigators in the SEAM-RA trial, whose results they expect to be practice changing. In addition, they praised the SELECT-CHOICE trial for providing insight into the relative safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abatacept (Orencia) as second- or third-line therapy in RA. And they warned their colleagues of rocky upcoming months for tofacitinib (Xeljanz) as the Food and Drug Administration reviews concerning new data from a long-term postmarketing safety trial.
 

Swedes show biologics may reduce excess lymphoma risk in RA

Decades ago, Swedish investigators harnessed their nation’s comprehensive linked health registries to demonstrate that patients with RA are inherently at greater risk for developing lymphoma. Now the Swedes have used the registries to identify a strong signal that this excess risk of lymphoma is reduced in RA patients treated with biologic drugs.

The study included 16,392 RA patients who initiated treatment with a biologic during the study period, 55,253 who were biologic-naive, and 229,047 age- and sex-matched controls from the general population. During the years 2006-2016, there was an adjusted 31% reduction in the risk of incident lymphoma in RA patients who started a first biologic agent, compared with those who did not, and a 54% reduction in lymphoma in biologic-treated patients, compared with those who switched from one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) to another.

Moreover, while RA patients with 0-2 years of accumulated time on biologics were at a statistically significant 3.42-fold increased risk of lymphoma, compared with the matched general population, that risk shrunk with longer exposure to these medications, dropping to a nonsignificant 1.53-fold increase with 3-4 years of biologic exposure and a 1.04-fold risk with 5 years or more. The lymphoma risks didn’t vary significantly among the TNF inhibitors, nor with the use of TNF inhibitors versus other biologics.

“I think this is really quite encouraging,” said John J. Cush, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas. “If the lymphoma risk was related to inflammation, I think you’d see results like this. It really does speak to the fact that control of inflammation over time does lessen one’s risk of cancer.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, observed that patients with RA continue to ask their rheumatologists if going on a TNF inhibitor will increase their risk of lymphoma, so these Swedish data are going to be useful in conversations in the clinic.

“I thought this study was very exciting,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS. “Maybe we can make the case now that the longer you’re on biologic therapies and the more recently you’re being treated, the better you do in terms of lymphoma risk.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Beware underappreciated hazards of very-low-dose glucocorticoids

The increased risk of osteoporotic fractures associated with corticosteroid therapy gets tons of attention. But the past year brought two cautionary studies that newly identified significantly increased risks of cardiovascular events and serious infection as well, even at doses of less than 5 mg/day, which have traditionally been believed safe long term.

Investigators at the University of Leeds (England) conducted a population-based cohort study in which they used the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze the oral corticosteroid dose-dependent cardiovascular risk in 25,324 patients with RA and 62,470 with five other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: inflammatory bowel disease, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vasculitis. None had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. The analysis accounted for changes in oral steroid dose over time and for the use of potentially confounding medications.

Over a median 5 years of follow-up, a strong steroid dose-dependent risk of acute MI, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, and abdominal aortic aneurysm was evident in patients with any of the six of the immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The 1-year adjusted cumulative risk of major adverse cardiovascular events jumped from 1.4% during periods of nonuse to 8.9% at a daily dose of 25 mg or more. Notably, when patients were on oral steroids at doses less than 5 mg/day, their risk of one or more of these major adverse cardiovascular events was 74% greater than when off steroids.

A separate red flag regarding low-dose glucocorticoids was raised by a retrospective cohort study of the 1-year risk of hospitalization for serious infection in 172,041 RA patients in the Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2015. After 6 months of stable use of DMARDs, 47.1% of those patients were on corticosteroids. Their 1-year cumulative incidence of severe infection resulting in hospitalization was 11% if their dose was 5 mg/day or less, 14.4% at >5 to 10 mg/day, and 17.7% at >10 mg/day, all significantly greater than the 8.6% rate in patients not on steroids. The same pattern held true when the investigators separately scrutinized 44,118 RA patients in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database for the years 2006-2015.

“This is a really important paper telling us what you’ve always known, which is that there’s a dose-related increase in serious infections in people on steroids. Everybody knows that, but usually people think of 10 mg/day and above,” Dr. Cush said. “This is a little bit sobering for those of you who think, ‘Well, I’m doing OK using 2.5 or 4 mg/day.’ In this study, even at doses of 5 mg/day or less, there’s a significant increase in serious hospitalizable infections.”

Taken together, the message of these two huge studies is clear, he added: “The idea is we probably shouldn’t be using steroids.”

Given the large array of therapies now available to address various aspects of the inflammatory and immune responses in RA, Dr. Kavanaugh asked, why do so many rheumatologists still maintain their patients on low-dose steroids?

”Because when we find something that works, we stick to it,” Dr. Cush replied.

RA disease activity predicts VTE risk

The risk of VTE climbs with RA disease activity such that patients with high disease activity – defined using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate-based Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28-ESR) – have double the VTE risk of those in disease remission, according to a Swedish nationwide cohort study using data from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. The investigators concluded that RA disease activity can be used in clinical practice as an additional tool for VTE risk stratification, alongside such established risk factors as immobilization, age, surgery, and comorbid conditions.

The study included 46,316 patients with RA who collectively experienced 2,241 VTE events within 1 year after one of their collective 322,601 visits to their rheumatologist. The overall cumulative 1-year incidence of VTE in the RA population was 0.71%, versus 0.36% in a control group composed of 215,843 randomly selected age- and sex-matched individuals drawn from the general Swedish population. That translates to an adjusted 1.88-fold increased risk in the RA group.

The VTE incidence was 0.52% in the year following a rheumatologist visit at which RA patients were found to be in DAS28-ESR remission. The adjusted risk for VTE climbed significantly in stepwise fashion with increasing disease activity: 12% greater risk with DAS28-ESR low disease activity, 48% greater risk with moderate disease activity, and 2.03-fold greater risk with high disease activity.
 

SEAM-RA shows which drug to withdraw to maintain remission gained on combo therapy

The SEAM-RA trial presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and published shortly afterward in Arthritis & Rheumatology provides guidance on how to best implement a drug tapering strategy in patients who have achieved sustained remission on combination therapy with etanercept (Enbrel) and methotrexate. The purpose of such a strategy is to reduce patients’ medication burden and exposure to safety concerns inherent in continuing therapy. SEAM-RA included 371 RA patients in sustained disease remission during 24 weeks of open-label treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate. At that point, they were randomized 2:2:1 to 48 weeks of double-blind methotrexate monotherapy with etanercept withdrawal, etanercept monotherapy, or continued combination therapy. Those who experienced disease worsening on double-blind monotherapy were eligible for combination rescue therapy with both drugs.

The primary endpoint was maintenance of remission without disease worsening at week 48. This was accomplished in 52.9% of the combination therapy group, with a similar 49.5% success rate in patients on etanercept monotherapy, both significantly better than the 28.7% rate with methotrexate monotherapy. The inference is that biologic monotherapy might be an advantageous strategy for maintenance after achieving prolonged remission on combination therapy.

“This study could impact guidelines,” Dr. Cush predicted.

Among the key study findings, in his view, was that disease worsening occurred early following the switch to methotrexate monotherapy: typically within the first 2-4 weeks. And combination rescue therapy worked: Almost 75% of patients were able to recapture disease remission regardless of which drug they’d been on as monotherapy, and almost 90% of patients on rescue therapy achieved a low-disease-activity state.

Still, just over half of patients were able to maintain long-term remission after downshifting to etanercept monotherapy, Dr. Kavanaugh noted. “The bedeviling thing is we don’t know which patients can do this,” he said.

This was made abundantly clear in PREDICTRA, a phase 4, double-blind study in which 122 RA patients in sustained remission on 40 mg of adalimumab (Humira) every 2 weeks were randomized 5:1 to adalimumab taper or withdrawal for 36 weeks. Overall, 36% of the taper group and 45% of those who halted the biologic flared within 36 weeks. Nothing on an extensive list of candidate baseline predictors predicted flare in either group.

”I think the interesting thing here is that nothing predicted it, not drug levels, antidrug antibodies, not even MRI evidence of inflammation while in remission. The lack of predictors of who’s going to do well off therapy makes us crazy,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. Also noteworthy was that when full-dose, open-label adalimumab was reinstituted as rescue therapy in patients who flared, only half of them regained remission during the following 4 months, he observed.

Dr. Cush didn’t mince words regarding his view of the concept underlying PREDICTRA.

“Why are we even talking about this? We spend our whole lives trying to get these patients into remission, we’re heavily invested in combination therapy, we’re very proud of our great successes, and now we want to find data to condone, ‘Let’s get off drug therapy?’ ” he argued.

“There are untold consequences to this,” the rheumatologist continued. “There are cardiovascular consequences, and we’ve seen the x-ray studies that show that patients may be doing clinically better but still have x-ray worsening because you’ve withdrawn the TNF inhibitor. I think this is all nonsense, and I’m totally against it.”

Making a SELECT-CHOICE in refractory RA

In patients whose RA has proved refractory to one or more biologics, opting for the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib as next-line therapy is significantly more effective than turning to the T-cell costimulation modulator abatacept, but at the cost of a doubled risk of severe adverse events, according to the findings of the phase 3, double-blind, 24-week, randomized SELECT-CHOICE trial.

In this 612-patient study, the week-12 clinical remission rate as defined by a C-reactive protein (CRP)-based DAS28 below 2.6 was 30% in the upadacitinib arm, compared to 13.3% with abatacept. At week 24, the remission rates were 46% and 31%, respectively. However, the severe adverse event rate was 6.3% in the upadacitinib group, including one death, one stroke, and two cases of VTE, compared to 3.2% with abatacept.

“Maybe this is a win for upadacitinib, but abatacept is a win when it comes to safety,” Dr. Cush said. “So the question is, when you’re making your second or third change in a biologic DMARD, are you going for safety or are you going for efficacy?”
 

Make way for machine learning

Studies of machine learning and artificial intelligence aimed at developing a more individualized treatment approach are popping up with increasing frequency at the major rheumatology meetings.

“This is really, I think, the future because for most of us, in most of our choices, as great as all of us are in managing RA, it is a crystal ball and a coin toss as to whether our next therapy is going to work,” Dr. Cush said.

He highlighted a study presented at the 2020 ACR annual meeting as an example of how machine learning can generate better evidence for selecting therapies. An international team of investigators used artificial intelligence to develop a simple rule to predict an RA patient’s likely response to the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor sarilumab (Kevzara). The researchers developed a list of 42 candidate predictors of an ACR20 response, including demographics, biomarkers, and disease activity scores, then applied machine learning to data from the 1,197-patient, phase 3 MOBILITY trial of sarilumab versus placebo in order to generate a predictive rule of better outcomes.

Out of the 42 candidate predictive values, the best predictive rule turned out to be the combination of the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and a baseline CRP level greater than 12.3 mg/L. This rule was then put to the test using data from four phase 3 clinical trials in which 34%-51% of RA patients randomized to sarilumab were rule-positive. The rule-positive patients had worse baseline prognostic factors and more severe RA. Yet rule-positive patients had a better outcome than that of those who were rule-negative. For example, a week-24 ACR70 response was achieved in 34% of rule-positive patients, nearly fivefold greater than the 7% rate in the rule-negative group.
 

Treat-to-target strategies don’t tame excess mortality in RA

At a mean of 17 years of follow-up in the Dutch BeST study – a pioneering treat-to-target study in RA – patients with early RA who were assigned to one of four treat-to-target strategies for 10 years showed excess mortality compared to the general age- and sex-matched Dutch population, Johanna M. Maassen, MD, reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Indeed, mortality was 37% higher in the RA patients than in the comparator population, with no significant differences in survival curves evident between the four tight-control strategies.

“This raises the question of whether survival in patients not strictly treated to target would have been even lower. Are we not doing as well as we think we’re doing?” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

“This is very sobering. It tells us we really do need to be better at managing RA. And I would say based on this data we need to be better at managing RA really early to get better outcomes really late,” said Dr. Cush. “The damage that led to cardiovascular risk could have been incurred earlier on and then carried forward when you look out to 15-20 years.”
 

More trouble for tofacitinib

Tofacitinib faces an uncertain future following Pfizer’s late-January press release announcing that the JAK inhibitor failed to meet noninferiority compared to anti-TNF therapy in terms of adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and adjudicated malignancies in an FDA-mandated postmarketing safety study. The study, known as ORAL Surveillance, or Study A3921133 – ‘1133’ for short – randomized 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to tofacitinib at 5 or 10 mg twice daily or to a TNF inhibitor.

The Pfizer press release was soon followed by an FDA safety warning and announcement that the agency is reviewing the full study data before making any final recommendations. The FDA already requires black box warnings for tofacitinib regarding increased risks of blood clots and death, but only at the 10-mg twice-daily dose. In the ORAL Surveillance study, however, the primary endpoint was noninferiority of the combined tofacitinib doses, and there was no evidence of a difference in endpoints between the 5- and 10-mg twice-daily doses.

Only the topline results released in the Pfizer press release are publicly available so far. The combined tofacitinib doses were associated with a 1.33-fold greater risk of adjudicated MACE and a 1.48-fold increase in adjudicated malignancies other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, compared to adalimumab or etanercept.

The jury is still out pending release of the full study data, in Dr. Kavanaugh’s view.

“When I get to look at the data, I want to see who are the people who had the events, their characteristics,” he said.

Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, MD, said the study’s topline results “make me a little nervous.

“The effect size is pretty large. It’s in the 1.4 range, which means there might be something there for real,” said Dr. Ogdie-Beatty, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

A massive Swedish cohort study suggesting that biologic agents reduce the known excess risk of lymphoma in patients with rheumatoid arthritis was hailed as one of the high points of the last year by speakers at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The speakers gave additional shout-outs regarding other key developments in RA during the pandemic year, including two huge studies showing that even low-dose corticosteroids at 5 mg/day or less carry the price of increased risk of cardiovascular disease and serious infections; Swedish data showing that RA disease activity can be used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification; evidence from the venerable BeST study showing at 17 years of follow-up that treat-to-target strategies didn’t prevent an increased mortality risk of RA compared to the general population; and a signal that artificial intelligence using machine learning will become useful in clinical practice sooner than many realize.

Also, the speakers offered kudos to the investigators in the SEAM-RA trial, whose results they expect to be practice changing. In addition, they praised the SELECT-CHOICE trial for providing insight into the relative safety and efficacy of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abatacept (Orencia) as second- or third-line therapy in RA. And they warned their colleagues of rocky upcoming months for tofacitinib (Xeljanz) as the Food and Drug Administration reviews concerning new data from a long-term postmarketing safety trial.
 

Swedes show biologics may reduce excess lymphoma risk in RA

Decades ago, Swedish investigators harnessed their nation’s comprehensive linked health registries to demonstrate that patients with RA are inherently at greater risk for developing lymphoma. Now the Swedes have used the registries to identify a strong signal that this excess risk of lymphoma is reduced in RA patients treated with biologic drugs.

The study included 16,392 RA patients who initiated treatment with a biologic during the study period, 55,253 who were biologic-naive, and 229,047 age- and sex-matched controls from the general population. During the years 2006-2016, there was an adjusted 31% reduction in the risk of incident lymphoma in RA patients who started a first biologic agent, compared with those who did not, and a 54% reduction in lymphoma in biologic-treated patients, compared with those who switched from one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) to another.

Moreover, while RA patients with 0-2 years of accumulated time on biologics were at a statistically significant 3.42-fold increased risk of lymphoma, compared with the matched general population, that risk shrunk with longer exposure to these medications, dropping to a nonsignificant 1.53-fold increase with 3-4 years of biologic exposure and a 1.04-fold risk with 5 years or more. The lymphoma risks didn’t vary significantly among the TNF inhibitors, nor with the use of TNF inhibitors versus other biologics.

“I think this is really quite encouraging,” said John J. Cush, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas, Dallas. “If the lymphoma risk was related to inflammation, I think you’d see results like this. It really does speak to the fact that control of inflammation over time does lessen one’s risk of cancer.”

Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, observed that patients with RA continue to ask their rheumatologists if going on a TNF inhibitor will increase their risk of lymphoma, so these Swedish data are going to be useful in conversations in the clinic.

“I thought this study was very exciting,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS. “Maybe we can make the case now that the longer you’re on biologic therapies and the more recently you’re being treated, the better you do in terms of lymphoma risk.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Beware underappreciated hazards of very-low-dose glucocorticoids

The increased risk of osteoporotic fractures associated with corticosteroid therapy gets tons of attention. But the past year brought two cautionary studies that newly identified significantly increased risks of cardiovascular events and serious infection as well, even at doses of less than 5 mg/day, which have traditionally been believed safe long term.

Investigators at the University of Leeds (England) conducted a population-based cohort study in which they used the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze the oral corticosteroid dose-dependent cardiovascular risk in 25,324 patients with RA and 62,470 with five other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: inflammatory bowel disease, giant cell arteritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, systemic lupus erythematosus, and vasculitis. None had known cardiovascular disease at baseline. The analysis accounted for changes in oral steroid dose over time and for the use of potentially confounding medications.

Over a median 5 years of follow-up, a strong steroid dose-dependent risk of acute MI, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, and abdominal aortic aneurysm was evident in patients with any of the six of the immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The 1-year adjusted cumulative risk of major adverse cardiovascular events jumped from 1.4% during periods of nonuse to 8.9% at a daily dose of 25 mg or more. Notably, when patients were on oral steroids at doses less than 5 mg/day, their risk of one or more of these major adverse cardiovascular events was 74% greater than when off steroids.

A separate red flag regarding low-dose glucocorticoids was raised by a retrospective cohort study of the 1-year risk of hospitalization for serious infection in 172,041 RA patients in the Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2015. After 6 months of stable use of DMARDs, 47.1% of those patients were on corticosteroids. Their 1-year cumulative incidence of severe infection resulting in hospitalization was 11% if their dose was 5 mg/day or less, 14.4% at >5 to 10 mg/day, and 17.7% at >10 mg/day, all significantly greater than the 8.6% rate in patients not on steroids. The same pattern held true when the investigators separately scrutinized 44,118 RA patients in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database for the years 2006-2015.

“This is a really important paper telling us what you’ve always known, which is that there’s a dose-related increase in serious infections in people on steroids. Everybody knows that, but usually people think of 10 mg/day and above,” Dr. Cush said. “This is a little bit sobering for those of you who think, ‘Well, I’m doing OK using 2.5 or 4 mg/day.’ In this study, even at doses of 5 mg/day or less, there’s a significant increase in serious hospitalizable infections.”

Taken together, the message of these two huge studies is clear, he added: “The idea is we probably shouldn’t be using steroids.”

Given the large array of therapies now available to address various aspects of the inflammatory and immune responses in RA, Dr. Kavanaugh asked, why do so many rheumatologists still maintain their patients on low-dose steroids?

”Because when we find something that works, we stick to it,” Dr. Cush replied.

RA disease activity predicts VTE risk

The risk of VTE climbs with RA disease activity such that patients with high disease activity – defined using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate-based Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28-ESR) – have double the VTE risk of those in disease remission, according to a Swedish nationwide cohort study using data from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register. The investigators concluded that RA disease activity can be used in clinical practice as an additional tool for VTE risk stratification, alongside such established risk factors as immobilization, age, surgery, and comorbid conditions.

The study included 46,316 patients with RA who collectively experienced 2,241 VTE events within 1 year after one of their collective 322,601 visits to their rheumatologist. The overall cumulative 1-year incidence of VTE in the RA population was 0.71%, versus 0.36% in a control group composed of 215,843 randomly selected age- and sex-matched individuals drawn from the general Swedish population. That translates to an adjusted 1.88-fold increased risk in the RA group.

The VTE incidence was 0.52% in the year following a rheumatologist visit at which RA patients were found to be in DAS28-ESR remission. The adjusted risk for VTE climbed significantly in stepwise fashion with increasing disease activity: 12% greater risk with DAS28-ESR low disease activity, 48% greater risk with moderate disease activity, and 2.03-fold greater risk with high disease activity.
 

SEAM-RA shows which drug to withdraw to maintain remission gained on combo therapy

The SEAM-RA trial presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and published shortly afterward in Arthritis & Rheumatology provides guidance on how to best implement a drug tapering strategy in patients who have achieved sustained remission on combination therapy with etanercept (Enbrel) and methotrexate. The purpose of such a strategy is to reduce patients’ medication burden and exposure to safety concerns inherent in continuing therapy. SEAM-RA included 371 RA patients in sustained disease remission during 24 weeks of open-label treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate. At that point, they were randomized 2:2:1 to 48 weeks of double-blind methotrexate monotherapy with etanercept withdrawal, etanercept monotherapy, or continued combination therapy. Those who experienced disease worsening on double-blind monotherapy were eligible for combination rescue therapy with both drugs.

The primary endpoint was maintenance of remission without disease worsening at week 48. This was accomplished in 52.9% of the combination therapy group, with a similar 49.5% success rate in patients on etanercept monotherapy, both significantly better than the 28.7% rate with methotrexate monotherapy. The inference is that biologic monotherapy might be an advantageous strategy for maintenance after achieving prolonged remission on combination therapy.

“This study could impact guidelines,” Dr. Cush predicted.

Among the key study findings, in his view, was that disease worsening occurred early following the switch to methotrexate monotherapy: typically within the first 2-4 weeks. And combination rescue therapy worked: Almost 75% of patients were able to recapture disease remission regardless of which drug they’d been on as monotherapy, and almost 90% of patients on rescue therapy achieved a low-disease-activity state.

Still, just over half of patients were able to maintain long-term remission after downshifting to etanercept monotherapy, Dr. Kavanaugh noted. “The bedeviling thing is we don’t know which patients can do this,” he said.

This was made abundantly clear in PREDICTRA, a phase 4, double-blind study in which 122 RA patients in sustained remission on 40 mg of adalimumab (Humira) every 2 weeks were randomized 5:1 to adalimumab taper or withdrawal for 36 weeks. Overall, 36% of the taper group and 45% of those who halted the biologic flared within 36 weeks. Nothing on an extensive list of candidate baseline predictors predicted flare in either group.

”I think the interesting thing here is that nothing predicted it, not drug levels, antidrug antibodies, not even MRI evidence of inflammation while in remission. The lack of predictors of who’s going to do well off therapy makes us crazy,” Dr. Kavanaugh said. Also noteworthy was that when full-dose, open-label adalimumab was reinstituted as rescue therapy in patients who flared, only half of them regained remission during the following 4 months, he observed.

Dr. Cush didn’t mince words regarding his view of the concept underlying PREDICTRA.

“Why are we even talking about this? We spend our whole lives trying to get these patients into remission, we’re heavily invested in combination therapy, we’re very proud of our great successes, and now we want to find data to condone, ‘Let’s get off drug therapy?’ ” he argued.

“There are untold consequences to this,” the rheumatologist continued. “There are cardiovascular consequences, and we’ve seen the x-ray studies that show that patients may be doing clinically better but still have x-ray worsening because you’ve withdrawn the TNF inhibitor. I think this is all nonsense, and I’m totally against it.”

Making a SELECT-CHOICE in refractory RA

In patients whose RA has proved refractory to one or more biologics, opting for the oral Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib as next-line therapy is significantly more effective than turning to the T-cell costimulation modulator abatacept, but at the cost of a doubled risk of severe adverse events, according to the findings of the phase 3, double-blind, 24-week, randomized SELECT-CHOICE trial.

In this 612-patient study, the week-12 clinical remission rate as defined by a C-reactive protein (CRP)-based DAS28 below 2.6 was 30% in the upadacitinib arm, compared to 13.3% with abatacept. At week 24, the remission rates were 46% and 31%, respectively. However, the severe adverse event rate was 6.3% in the upadacitinib group, including one death, one stroke, and two cases of VTE, compared to 3.2% with abatacept.

“Maybe this is a win for upadacitinib, but abatacept is a win when it comes to safety,” Dr. Cush said. “So the question is, when you’re making your second or third change in a biologic DMARD, are you going for safety or are you going for efficacy?”
 

Make way for machine learning

Studies of machine learning and artificial intelligence aimed at developing a more individualized treatment approach are popping up with increasing frequency at the major rheumatology meetings.

“This is really, I think, the future because for most of us, in most of our choices, as great as all of us are in managing RA, it is a crystal ball and a coin toss as to whether our next therapy is going to work,” Dr. Cush said.

He highlighted a study presented at the 2020 ACR annual meeting as an example of how machine learning can generate better evidence for selecting therapies. An international team of investigators used artificial intelligence to develop a simple rule to predict an RA patient’s likely response to the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor sarilumab (Kevzara). The researchers developed a list of 42 candidate predictors of an ACR20 response, including demographics, biomarkers, and disease activity scores, then applied machine learning to data from the 1,197-patient, phase 3 MOBILITY trial of sarilumab versus placebo in order to generate a predictive rule of better outcomes.

Out of the 42 candidate predictive values, the best predictive rule turned out to be the combination of the presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and a baseline CRP level greater than 12.3 mg/L. This rule was then put to the test using data from four phase 3 clinical trials in which 34%-51% of RA patients randomized to sarilumab were rule-positive. The rule-positive patients had worse baseline prognostic factors and more severe RA. Yet rule-positive patients had a better outcome than that of those who were rule-negative. For example, a week-24 ACR70 response was achieved in 34% of rule-positive patients, nearly fivefold greater than the 7% rate in the rule-negative group.
 

Treat-to-target strategies don’t tame excess mortality in RA

At a mean of 17 years of follow-up in the Dutch BeST study – a pioneering treat-to-target study in RA – patients with early RA who were assigned to one of four treat-to-target strategies for 10 years showed excess mortality compared to the general age- and sex-matched Dutch population, Johanna M. Maassen, MD, reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Indeed, mortality was 37% higher in the RA patients than in the comparator population, with no significant differences in survival curves evident between the four tight-control strategies.

“This raises the question of whether survival in patients not strictly treated to target would have been even lower. Are we not doing as well as we think we’re doing?” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

“This is very sobering. It tells us we really do need to be better at managing RA. And I would say based on this data we need to be better at managing RA really early to get better outcomes really late,” said Dr. Cush. “The damage that led to cardiovascular risk could have been incurred earlier on and then carried forward when you look out to 15-20 years.”
 

More trouble for tofacitinib

Tofacitinib faces an uncertain future following Pfizer’s late-January press release announcing that the JAK inhibitor failed to meet noninferiority compared to anti-TNF therapy in terms of adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and adjudicated malignancies in an FDA-mandated postmarketing safety study. The study, known as ORAL Surveillance, or Study A3921133 – ‘1133’ for short – randomized 4,362 RA patients aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor to tofacitinib at 5 or 10 mg twice daily or to a TNF inhibitor.

The Pfizer press release was soon followed by an FDA safety warning and announcement that the agency is reviewing the full study data before making any final recommendations. The FDA already requires black box warnings for tofacitinib regarding increased risks of blood clots and death, but only at the 10-mg twice-daily dose. In the ORAL Surveillance study, however, the primary endpoint was noninferiority of the combined tofacitinib doses, and there was no evidence of a difference in endpoints between the 5- and 10-mg twice-daily doses.

Only the topline results released in the Pfizer press release are publicly available so far. The combined tofacitinib doses were associated with a 1.33-fold greater risk of adjudicated MACE and a 1.48-fold increase in adjudicated malignancies other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, compared to adalimumab or etanercept.

The jury is still out pending release of the full study data, in Dr. Kavanaugh’s view.

“When I get to look at the data, I want to see who are the people who had the events, their characteristics,” he said.

Alexis R. Ogdie-Beatty, MD, said the study’s topline results “make me a little nervous.

“The effect size is pretty large. It’s in the 1.4 range, which means there might be something there for real,” said Dr. Ogdie-Beatty, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The potent anabolic, antiosteoporosis agent romosozumab has been saddled with an Food and Drug Administration–mandated black-box warning for increased cardiovascular risk that may not be warranted, Glenn Haugeberg, MD, PhD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The black-box warning states that romosozumab (Evenity), a monoclonal antibody approved in 2019 for fracture prevention in patients with osteoporosis, may increase the risk of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death. The warning arose from FDA concerns raised by the results of the phase 3 ARCH trial in which 4,093 postmenopausal women at high fracture risk were randomized to monthly subcutaneous injections of romosozumab or weekly dosing of the oral bisphosphonate alendronate (Fosamax) for 1 year, followed by 12 months of open-label alendronate for all. Alarm bells went off at the FDA because during year 1, the incidence of adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.5% in the romosozumab arm, compared with 1.9% with alendronate.
 

Could a cardioprotective effect of bisphosphonates explain cardiovascular concerns?

However, evidence from multiple animal and human studies suggests that bisphosphonates actually have a cardioprotective effect. For example, a Taiwanese population-based cohort study of 1,548 patients on bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporotic fractures and 4,644 individuals with hip or vertebral fractures who were not on a bisphosphonate showed a 65% reduction in the risk of acute MI during 2 years of follow-up in those who received a bisphosphonate.

“That may explain the ARCH finding. It may – I say may – be that this concern in the ARCH study can be explained by the positive effect of the bisphosphonates on cardiovascular events,” according to Dr. Haugeberg, head of the division of rheumatology at the Southern Norway Hospital Trust, Kristiansand, and professor of medicine at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

He noted that, in the FRAME trial, another pivotal phase 3 trial of romosozumab, there was no signal of increased cardiovascular risk, compared with placebo. In FRAME, which included 7,180 osteoporotic postmenopausal women, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and other adverse events were balanced between the two study arms at 12 months. Indeed, the incidence of adjudicated serious cardiovascular events was 0.5% with romosozumab and 0.4% with placebo injections. After 12 months, all participants were transitioned to denosumab (Prolia) for another 12 months. At 24 months, there remained no significant between-group difference in cardiovascular events, cancer, osteoarthritis, hyperostosis, or other major adverse events.
 

Potency of romosozumab

Romosozumab’s efficacy for fracture prevention in these two pivotal trials was striking. The risk of new vertebral fractures was reduced by 73% with romosozumab, compared with placebo at 12 months in FRAME, and by 75% at 24 months in the romosozumab-to-denosumab group.

“FRAME was a 12-month study for the primary endpoint. The bisphosphonate studies typically had a 3-year design in order to show benefit, but here you see only 12-month follow-up. This illustrates the potency of this drug. We saw rapid increase in bone density and a huge decrease in new vertebral fractures versus placebo in the first 12 months, then during follow-up with denosumab the reduction in fractures was maintained,” the rheumatologist commented.

In the ARCH trial, where romosozumab went head to head with a very effective oral bisphosphonate, the risk of new vertebral fractures was 48% lower at 24 months in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group than in women on alendronate for the full 24 months, while the risk of hip fractures was reduced by 38%.

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody with a novel mechanism of anabolic action: This agent binds to sclerostin, which is produced in osteocytes. When sclerostin binds to receptors on osteoblasts it reduces their activity, thereby inhibiting bone formation. Romosozumab takes away this inhibition of osteoblasts, boosting their activity. The result is increased bone formation accompanied by decreased bone resorption. This allows for a logical treatment approach: first using an anabolic agent – in this instance, subcutaneously injected romosozumab at 210 mg once monthly for 12 months – then switching to an antiresorptive agent in order to maintain the gain in bone mineral density and decrease fracture risk. This is the same treatment strategy recommended when using the anabolic agents teriparatide (Forteo) and abaloparatide (Tymlos); however, those parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone–related protein analogs are seldom used in Norway because their cost is substantially greater than for romosozumab, he explained.

Updated Endocrine Society guidelines

Dr. Haugeberg called romosozumab “a new and wonderful drug.” The Endocrine Society also considers romosozumab an important new drug, as evidenced by the release of an 8-page update of the group’s clinical practice guideline on the pharmacologic management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women; the update was devoted specifically to the use of romosozumab. The update, published in response to the biologic’s recent approval by U.S., Canadian, and European regulatory agencies, came just 10 months after release of the Endocrine Society’s comprehensive 28-page clinical practice guideline.

Dr. Haugeberg is a fan of the Endocrine Society guideline, which recommends romosozumab as a first-line therapy in postmenopausal women at very high risk of osteoporotic fracture, defined as those with a history of multiple vertebral fractures or severe osteoporosis with a T score of –2.5 or less at the hip or spine plus fractures. The updated guideline also recommends consideration of the antisclerostin biologic in high-risk patients who have failed on antiresorptive treatments.

The practice guideline states that the issue of a possible cardioprotective effect of alendronate in the ARCH trial “remains uncertain at this time.”

“Women at high risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke should not be considered for romosozumab pending further studies on cardiovascular risk associated with this treatment,” according to the Endocrine Society.

Dr. Haugeberg reported receiving research grants from Pfizer and Biogen and serving as a consultant to and/or on speakers’ bureaus for Amgen, which markets romosozumab, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The potent anabolic, antiosteoporosis agent romosozumab has been saddled with an Food and Drug Administration–mandated black-box warning for increased cardiovascular risk that may not be warranted, Glenn Haugeberg, MD, PhD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The black-box warning states that romosozumab (Evenity), a monoclonal antibody approved in 2019 for fracture prevention in patients with osteoporosis, may increase the risk of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death. The warning arose from FDA concerns raised by the results of the phase 3 ARCH trial in which 4,093 postmenopausal women at high fracture risk were randomized to monthly subcutaneous injections of romosozumab or weekly dosing of the oral bisphosphonate alendronate (Fosamax) for 1 year, followed by 12 months of open-label alendronate for all. Alarm bells went off at the FDA because during year 1, the incidence of adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.5% in the romosozumab arm, compared with 1.9% with alendronate.
 

Could a cardioprotective effect of bisphosphonates explain cardiovascular concerns?

However, evidence from multiple animal and human studies suggests that bisphosphonates actually have a cardioprotective effect. For example, a Taiwanese population-based cohort study of 1,548 patients on bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporotic fractures and 4,644 individuals with hip or vertebral fractures who were not on a bisphosphonate showed a 65% reduction in the risk of acute MI during 2 years of follow-up in those who received a bisphosphonate.

“That may explain the ARCH finding. It may – I say may – be that this concern in the ARCH study can be explained by the positive effect of the bisphosphonates on cardiovascular events,” according to Dr. Haugeberg, head of the division of rheumatology at the Southern Norway Hospital Trust, Kristiansand, and professor of medicine at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

He noted that, in the FRAME trial, another pivotal phase 3 trial of romosozumab, there was no signal of increased cardiovascular risk, compared with placebo. In FRAME, which included 7,180 osteoporotic postmenopausal women, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and other adverse events were balanced between the two study arms at 12 months. Indeed, the incidence of adjudicated serious cardiovascular events was 0.5% with romosozumab and 0.4% with placebo injections. After 12 months, all participants were transitioned to denosumab (Prolia) for another 12 months. At 24 months, there remained no significant between-group difference in cardiovascular events, cancer, osteoarthritis, hyperostosis, or other major adverse events.
 

Potency of romosozumab

Romosozumab’s efficacy for fracture prevention in these two pivotal trials was striking. The risk of new vertebral fractures was reduced by 73% with romosozumab, compared with placebo at 12 months in FRAME, and by 75% at 24 months in the romosozumab-to-denosumab group.

“FRAME was a 12-month study for the primary endpoint. The bisphosphonate studies typically had a 3-year design in order to show benefit, but here you see only 12-month follow-up. This illustrates the potency of this drug. We saw rapid increase in bone density and a huge decrease in new vertebral fractures versus placebo in the first 12 months, then during follow-up with denosumab the reduction in fractures was maintained,” the rheumatologist commented.

In the ARCH trial, where romosozumab went head to head with a very effective oral bisphosphonate, the risk of new vertebral fractures was 48% lower at 24 months in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group than in women on alendronate for the full 24 months, while the risk of hip fractures was reduced by 38%.

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody with a novel mechanism of anabolic action: This agent binds to sclerostin, which is produced in osteocytes. When sclerostin binds to receptors on osteoblasts it reduces their activity, thereby inhibiting bone formation. Romosozumab takes away this inhibition of osteoblasts, boosting their activity. The result is increased bone formation accompanied by decreased bone resorption. This allows for a logical treatment approach: first using an anabolic agent – in this instance, subcutaneously injected romosozumab at 210 mg once monthly for 12 months – then switching to an antiresorptive agent in order to maintain the gain in bone mineral density and decrease fracture risk. This is the same treatment strategy recommended when using the anabolic agents teriparatide (Forteo) and abaloparatide (Tymlos); however, those parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone–related protein analogs are seldom used in Norway because their cost is substantially greater than for romosozumab, he explained.

Updated Endocrine Society guidelines

Dr. Haugeberg called romosozumab “a new and wonderful drug.” The Endocrine Society also considers romosozumab an important new drug, as evidenced by the release of an 8-page update of the group’s clinical practice guideline on the pharmacologic management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women; the update was devoted specifically to the use of romosozumab. The update, published in response to the biologic’s recent approval by U.S., Canadian, and European regulatory agencies, came just 10 months after release of the Endocrine Society’s comprehensive 28-page clinical practice guideline.

Dr. Haugeberg is a fan of the Endocrine Society guideline, which recommends romosozumab as a first-line therapy in postmenopausal women at very high risk of osteoporotic fracture, defined as those with a history of multiple vertebral fractures or severe osteoporosis with a T score of –2.5 or less at the hip or spine plus fractures. The updated guideline also recommends consideration of the antisclerostin biologic in high-risk patients who have failed on antiresorptive treatments.

The practice guideline states that the issue of a possible cardioprotective effect of alendronate in the ARCH trial “remains uncertain at this time.”

“Women at high risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke should not be considered for romosozumab pending further studies on cardiovascular risk associated with this treatment,” according to the Endocrine Society.

Dr. Haugeberg reported receiving research grants from Pfizer and Biogen and serving as a consultant to and/or on speakers’ bureaus for Amgen, which markets romosozumab, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The potent anabolic, antiosteoporosis agent romosozumab has been saddled with an Food and Drug Administration–mandated black-box warning for increased cardiovascular risk that may not be warranted, Glenn Haugeberg, MD, PhD, asserted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The black-box warning states that romosozumab (Evenity), a monoclonal antibody approved in 2019 for fracture prevention in patients with osteoporosis, may increase the risk of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death. The warning arose from FDA concerns raised by the results of the phase 3 ARCH trial in which 4,093 postmenopausal women at high fracture risk were randomized to monthly subcutaneous injections of romosozumab or weekly dosing of the oral bisphosphonate alendronate (Fosamax) for 1 year, followed by 12 months of open-label alendronate for all. Alarm bells went off at the FDA because during year 1, the incidence of adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.5% in the romosozumab arm, compared with 1.9% with alendronate.
 

Could a cardioprotective effect of bisphosphonates explain cardiovascular concerns?

However, evidence from multiple animal and human studies suggests that bisphosphonates actually have a cardioprotective effect. For example, a Taiwanese population-based cohort study of 1,548 patients on bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporotic fractures and 4,644 individuals with hip or vertebral fractures who were not on a bisphosphonate showed a 65% reduction in the risk of acute MI during 2 years of follow-up in those who received a bisphosphonate.

“That may explain the ARCH finding. It may – I say may – be that this concern in the ARCH study can be explained by the positive effect of the bisphosphonates on cardiovascular events,” according to Dr. Haugeberg, head of the division of rheumatology at the Southern Norway Hospital Trust, Kristiansand, and professor of medicine at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

He noted that, in the FRAME trial, another pivotal phase 3 trial of romosozumab, there was no signal of increased cardiovascular risk, compared with placebo. In FRAME, which included 7,180 osteoporotic postmenopausal women, rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and other adverse events were balanced between the two study arms at 12 months. Indeed, the incidence of adjudicated serious cardiovascular events was 0.5% with romosozumab and 0.4% with placebo injections. After 12 months, all participants were transitioned to denosumab (Prolia) for another 12 months. At 24 months, there remained no significant between-group difference in cardiovascular events, cancer, osteoarthritis, hyperostosis, or other major adverse events.
 

Potency of romosozumab

Romosozumab’s efficacy for fracture prevention in these two pivotal trials was striking. The risk of new vertebral fractures was reduced by 73% with romosozumab, compared with placebo at 12 months in FRAME, and by 75% at 24 months in the romosozumab-to-denosumab group.

“FRAME was a 12-month study for the primary endpoint. The bisphosphonate studies typically had a 3-year design in order to show benefit, but here you see only 12-month follow-up. This illustrates the potency of this drug. We saw rapid increase in bone density and a huge decrease in new vertebral fractures versus placebo in the first 12 months, then during follow-up with denosumab the reduction in fractures was maintained,” the rheumatologist commented.

In the ARCH trial, where romosozumab went head to head with a very effective oral bisphosphonate, the risk of new vertebral fractures was 48% lower at 24 months in the romosozumab-to-alendronate group than in women on alendronate for the full 24 months, while the risk of hip fractures was reduced by 38%.

Romosozumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody with a novel mechanism of anabolic action: This agent binds to sclerostin, which is produced in osteocytes. When sclerostin binds to receptors on osteoblasts it reduces their activity, thereby inhibiting bone formation. Romosozumab takes away this inhibition of osteoblasts, boosting their activity. The result is increased bone formation accompanied by decreased bone resorption. This allows for a logical treatment approach: first using an anabolic agent – in this instance, subcutaneously injected romosozumab at 210 mg once monthly for 12 months – then switching to an antiresorptive agent in order to maintain the gain in bone mineral density and decrease fracture risk. This is the same treatment strategy recommended when using the anabolic agents teriparatide (Forteo) and abaloparatide (Tymlos); however, those parathyroid hormone and parathyroid hormone–related protein analogs are seldom used in Norway because their cost is substantially greater than for romosozumab, he explained.

Updated Endocrine Society guidelines

Dr. Haugeberg called romosozumab “a new and wonderful drug.” The Endocrine Society also considers romosozumab an important new drug, as evidenced by the release of an 8-page update of the group’s clinical practice guideline on the pharmacologic management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women; the update was devoted specifically to the use of romosozumab. The update, published in response to the biologic’s recent approval by U.S., Canadian, and European regulatory agencies, came just 10 months after release of the Endocrine Society’s comprehensive 28-page clinical practice guideline.

Dr. Haugeberg is a fan of the Endocrine Society guideline, which recommends romosozumab as a first-line therapy in postmenopausal women at very high risk of osteoporotic fracture, defined as those with a history of multiple vertebral fractures or severe osteoporosis with a T score of –2.5 or less at the hip or spine plus fractures. The updated guideline also recommends consideration of the antisclerostin biologic in high-risk patients who have failed on antiresorptive treatments.

The practice guideline states that the issue of a possible cardioprotective effect of alendronate in the ARCH trial “remains uncertain at this time.”

“Women at high risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke should not be considered for romosozumab pending further studies on cardiovascular risk associated with this treatment,” according to the Endocrine Society.

Dr. Haugeberg reported receiving research grants from Pfizer and Biogen and serving as a consultant to and/or on speakers’ bureaus for Amgen, which markets romosozumab, and more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]