MDedge Rheumatology

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent randomized clinical trial suggesting that multivitamins may improve memory and slow cognitive aging, compared with placebo, known as COSMOS (Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamins Outcome Study). This is the second COSMOS trial to show a benefit of multivitamins on memory and cognition. This trial involved a collaboration between Brigham and Columbia University and was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. I’d like to acknowledge that I am a coauthor of this study, together with Dr. Howard Sesso, who co-leads the main COSMOS trial with me.

Preserving memory and cognitive function is of critical importance to older adults. Nutritional interventions play an important role because we know the brain requires several nutrients for optimal health, and deficiencies in one or more of these nutrients may accelerate cognitive decline. Some of the micronutrients that are known to be important for brain health include vitamin B12, thiamin, other B vitamins, lutein, magnesium, and zinc, among others.

The current trial included 3,500 participants aged 60 or older, looking at performance on a web-based memory test. The multivitamin group did significantly better than the placebo group on memory tests and word recall, a finding that was estimated as the equivalent of slowing age-related memory loss by about 3 years. The benefit was first seen at 1 year and was sustained across the 3 years of the trial.

Intriguingly, in both COSMOS and COSMOS-Web, and the earlier COSMOS-Mind study, which was done in collaboration with Wake Forest, the participants with a history of cardiovascular disease showed the greatest benefits from multivitamins, perhaps due to lower nutrient status. But the basis for this finding needs to be explored further.

A few important caveats need to be emphasized. First, multivitamins and other dietary supplements will never be a substitute for a healthy diet and healthy lifestyle and should not distract from those goals. But multivitamins may have a role as a complementary strategy. Another caveat is that the randomized trials tested recommended dietary allowances and not megadoses of these micronutrients. In fact, randomized trials of high doses of isolated micronutrients have not clearly shown cognitive benefits, and this suggests that more is not necessarily better and may be worse. High doses also may be associated with toxicity, or they may interfere with absorption or bioavailability of other nutrients.

In COSMOS, over the average 3.6 years of follow-up and in the earlier Physicians’ Health Study II,  over 1 year of supplementation, multivitamins were found to be safe without any clear risks or safety concerns. A further caveat is that although Centrum Silver was tested in this trial, we would not expect that this is a brand-specific benefit, and other high-quality multivitamin brands would be expected to confer similar benefits. Of course, it’s important to check bottles for quality-control documentation such as the seals of the U.S. Pharmacopeia, National Science Foundation, ConsumerLab.com, and other auditors.

Overall, the finding that a daily multivitamin improved memory and slowed cognitive decline in two separate COSMOS randomized trials is exciting, suggesting that multivitamin supplementation holds promise as a safe, accessible, and affordable approach to protecting cognitive health in older adults. Further research will be needed to understand who is most likely to benefit and the biological mechanisms involved. Expert committees will have to look at the research and decide whether any changes in guidelines are indicated in the future.

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School and director of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She reported receiving funding/donations from Mars Symbioscience.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Two independent efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the development of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from patients with signs and symptoms not meeting full disease criteria showed good, near expert-level accuracy, according to findings from two studies presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In one study, researchers from Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands developed an AI-based method to automatically analyze MR scans of extremities in order to predict early rheumatoid arthritis. The second study involved a Japanese research team that used machine learning to create a model capable of predicting progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA. Both approaches would facilitate early diagnosis of RA, enabling timely treatment and improved clinical outcomes.

Dr. Lennart Jans

Lennart Jans, MD, PhD, who was not involved in either study but works with AI-assisted imaging analysis on a daily basis as head of clinics in musculoskeletal radiology at Ghent University Hospital and a professor of radiology at Ghent University in Belgium, said that integrating AI into health care poses several challenging aspects that need to be addressed. “There are three main challenges associated with the development and implementation of AI-based tools in clinical practice,” he said. “Firstly, obtaining heterogeneous datasets from different image hardware vendors, diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and various ages and genders is crucial for training and testing the AI algorithms. Secondly, AI algorithms need to achieve a predetermined performance level depending on the specific use case. Finally, a regulatory pathway must be followed to obtain the necessary FDA or MDR [medical devices regulation] certification before applying an AI use case in clinical practice.”
 

RA prediction

Yanli Li, the first author of the study and a member of the division of image processing at Leiden University Medical Center, explained the potential benefits of early RA prediction. “If we could determine whether a patient presenting with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA) or early onset arthritis (EAC) is likely to develop RA in the near future, physicians could initiate treatment earlier, reducing the risk of disease progression.”

Currently, rheumatologists estimate the likelihood of developing RA by visually scoring MR scans using the RAMRIS scoring system. “We decided to explore the use of AI,” Dr. Li explained, “because it could save time, reduce costs and labor, eliminate the need for scoring training, and allow for hypothesis-free discoveries.”

The research team collected MR scans of the hands and feet from Leiden University Medical Center’s radiology department. The dataset consisted of images from 177 healthy individuals, 692 subjects with CSA (including 113 who developed RA), and 969 with EAC (including 447 who developed RA). The images underwent automated preprocessing to remove artifacts and standardize the input for the computer. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to predict RA development within a 2-year time frame.

The training process involved several steps. Initially, the researchers pretrained the model to learn anatomy by masking parts of the images and tasking the computer with reconstructing them. Subsequently, the AI was trained to differentiate between the groups (EAC vs. healthy and CSA vs. healthy), then between RA and other disorders. Finally, the AI model was trained to predict RA.

The accuracy of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). The model that was trained using MR scans of the hands (including the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints) achieved a mean AUROC of 0.84 for distinguishing EAC from healthy subjects and 0.83 for distinguishing CSA from healthy subjects. The model trained using MR scans of both the hands and feet achieved a mean AUROC of 0.71 for distinguishing RA from non-RA cases in EAC. The accuracy of the model in predicting RA using MR scans of the hands was 0.73, which closely matches the reported accuracy of visual scoring by human experts (0.74). Importantly, the generation and analysis of heat maps suggested that the deep learning model predicts RA based on known inflammatory signals.

“Automatic RA prediction using AI interpretation of MR scans is feasible,” Dr. Li said. “Incorporating additional clinical data will likely further enhance the AI prediction, and the heat maps may contribute to the discovery of new MRI biomarkers for RA development.”

“AI models and engines have achieved near-expertise levels for various use cases, including the early detection of RA on MRI scans of the hands,” said Dr. Jans, the Ghent University radiologist. “We are observing the same progress in AI detection of rheumatic diseases in other imaging modalities, such as radiography, CT, and ultrasound. However, it is important to note that the reported performances often apply to selected cohorts with standardized imaging protocols. The next challenge [for Dr. Li and colleagues, and others] will be to train and test these algorithms using more heterogeneous datasets to make them applicable in real-world settings.”
 

A ‘transitional phase’ of applying AI techniques

“In a medical setting, as computer scientists, we face unique challenges,” pointed out Berend C. Stoel, MSc, PhD, the senior author of the Leiden study. “Our team consists of approximately 30-35 researchers, primarily electrical engineers or computer scientists, situated within the radiology department of Leiden University Medical Center. Our focus is on image processing, seeking AI-based solutions for image analysis, particularly utilizing deep learning techniques.”

Their objective is to validate this method more broadly, and to achieve that, they require collaboration with other hospitals. Up until now, they have primarily worked with a specific type of MR images, extremity MR scans. These scans are conducted in only a few centers equipped with extremity MR scanners, which can accommodate only hands or feet.

“We are currently in a transitional phase, aiming to apply our methods to standard MR scans, which are more widely available,” Dr. Stoel informed this news organization. “We are engaged in various projects. One project, nearing completion, involves the scoring of early RA, where we train the computer to imitate the actions of rheumatologists or radiologists. We started with a relatively straightforward approach, but AI offers a multitude of possibilities. In the project presented at EULAR, we manipulated the images in a different manner, attempting to predict future events. We also have a parallel project where we employ AI to detect inflammatory changes over time by analyzing sequences of images (MR scans). Furthermore, we have developed AI models to distinguish between treatment and placebo groups. Once the neural network has been trained for this task, we can inquire about the location and timing of changes, thereby gaining insights into the therapy’s response.

“When considering the history of AI, it has experienced both ups and downs. We are currently in a promising phase, but if certain projects fail, expectations might diminish. My hope is that we will indeed revolutionize and enhance disease diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Additionally, AI may provide us with additional information that we, as humans, may not be able to extract from these images. However, it is difficult to predict where we will stand in 5-10 years,” he concluded.
 

Predicting disease progression

The second study, which explored the application of AI in predicting the progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, was presented by Takayuki Fujii, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of advanced medicine for rheumatic diseases at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. “Predicting the progression of RA from UA remains an unmet medical need,” he reminded the audience.

Dr. Takayuki Fujii

Dr. Fujii’s team used data from the KURAMA cohort, a large observational RA cohort from a single center, to develop a machine learning model. The study included a total of 322 patients initially diagnosed with UA. The deep neural network (DNN) model was trained using 24 clinical features that are easily obtainable in routine clinical practice, such as age, sex, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). The DNN model achieved a prediction accuracy of 85.1% in the training cohort. When the model was applied to validation data from an external dataset consisting of 88 patients from the ANSWER cohort, a large multicenter observational RA cohort, the prediction accuracy was 80%.

“We have developed a machine learning model that can predict the progression of RA from UA using clinical parameters,” Dr. Fujii concluded. “This model has the potential to assist rheumatologists in providing appropriate care and timely intervention for patients with UA.”

“Dr. Fujii presented a fascinating study,” Dr. Jans said. “They achieved an accuracy of 80% when applying a DNN model to predict progression from UA to RA. This level of accuracy is relatively high and certainly promising. However, it is important to consider that a pre-test probability of 30% [for progressing from UA to RA]  is also relatively high, which partially explains the high accuracy. Nonetheless, this study represents a significant step forward in the clinical management of patients with UA, as it helps identify those who may benefit the most from regular clinical follow-up.”

Dr. Li and Dr. Stoel report no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Fujii has received speaking fees from Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Chugai, and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Dr. Jans has received speaking fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, and Novartis; he is cofounder of RheumaFinder. The Leiden study was funded by the Dutch Research Council and the China Scholarship Council. The study by Dr. Fujii and colleagues had no outside funding.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Two independent efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the development of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from patients with signs and symptoms not meeting full disease criteria showed good, near expert-level accuracy, according to findings from two studies presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In one study, researchers from Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands developed an AI-based method to automatically analyze MR scans of extremities in order to predict early rheumatoid arthritis. The second study involved a Japanese research team that used machine learning to create a model capable of predicting progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA. Both approaches would facilitate early diagnosis of RA, enabling timely treatment and improved clinical outcomes.

Dr. Lennart Jans

Lennart Jans, MD, PhD, who was not involved in either study but works with AI-assisted imaging analysis on a daily basis as head of clinics in musculoskeletal radiology at Ghent University Hospital and a professor of radiology at Ghent University in Belgium, said that integrating AI into health care poses several challenging aspects that need to be addressed. “There are three main challenges associated with the development and implementation of AI-based tools in clinical practice,” he said. “Firstly, obtaining heterogeneous datasets from different image hardware vendors, diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and various ages and genders is crucial for training and testing the AI algorithms. Secondly, AI algorithms need to achieve a predetermined performance level depending on the specific use case. Finally, a regulatory pathway must be followed to obtain the necessary FDA or MDR [medical devices regulation] certification before applying an AI use case in clinical practice.”
 

RA prediction

Yanli Li, the first author of the study and a member of the division of image processing at Leiden University Medical Center, explained the potential benefits of early RA prediction. “If we could determine whether a patient presenting with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA) or early onset arthritis (EAC) is likely to develop RA in the near future, physicians could initiate treatment earlier, reducing the risk of disease progression.”

Currently, rheumatologists estimate the likelihood of developing RA by visually scoring MR scans using the RAMRIS scoring system. “We decided to explore the use of AI,” Dr. Li explained, “because it could save time, reduce costs and labor, eliminate the need for scoring training, and allow for hypothesis-free discoveries.”

The research team collected MR scans of the hands and feet from Leiden University Medical Center’s radiology department. The dataset consisted of images from 177 healthy individuals, 692 subjects with CSA (including 113 who developed RA), and 969 with EAC (including 447 who developed RA). The images underwent automated preprocessing to remove artifacts and standardize the input for the computer. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to predict RA development within a 2-year time frame.

The training process involved several steps. Initially, the researchers pretrained the model to learn anatomy by masking parts of the images and tasking the computer with reconstructing them. Subsequently, the AI was trained to differentiate between the groups (EAC vs. healthy and CSA vs. healthy), then between RA and other disorders. Finally, the AI model was trained to predict RA.

The accuracy of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). The model that was trained using MR scans of the hands (including the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints) achieved a mean AUROC of 0.84 for distinguishing EAC from healthy subjects and 0.83 for distinguishing CSA from healthy subjects. The model trained using MR scans of both the hands and feet achieved a mean AUROC of 0.71 for distinguishing RA from non-RA cases in EAC. The accuracy of the model in predicting RA using MR scans of the hands was 0.73, which closely matches the reported accuracy of visual scoring by human experts (0.74). Importantly, the generation and analysis of heat maps suggested that the deep learning model predicts RA based on known inflammatory signals.

“Automatic RA prediction using AI interpretation of MR scans is feasible,” Dr. Li said. “Incorporating additional clinical data will likely further enhance the AI prediction, and the heat maps may contribute to the discovery of new MRI biomarkers for RA development.”

“AI models and engines have achieved near-expertise levels for various use cases, including the early detection of RA on MRI scans of the hands,” said Dr. Jans, the Ghent University radiologist. “We are observing the same progress in AI detection of rheumatic diseases in other imaging modalities, such as radiography, CT, and ultrasound. However, it is important to note that the reported performances often apply to selected cohorts with standardized imaging protocols. The next challenge [for Dr. Li and colleagues, and others] will be to train and test these algorithms using more heterogeneous datasets to make them applicable in real-world settings.”
 

A ‘transitional phase’ of applying AI techniques

“In a medical setting, as computer scientists, we face unique challenges,” pointed out Berend C. Stoel, MSc, PhD, the senior author of the Leiden study. “Our team consists of approximately 30-35 researchers, primarily electrical engineers or computer scientists, situated within the radiology department of Leiden University Medical Center. Our focus is on image processing, seeking AI-based solutions for image analysis, particularly utilizing deep learning techniques.”

Their objective is to validate this method more broadly, and to achieve that, they require collaboration with other hospitals. Up until now, they have primarily worked with a specific type of MR images, extremity MR scans. These scans are conducted in only a few centers equipped with extremity MR scanners, which can accommodate only hands or feet.

“We are currently in a transitional phase, aiming to apply our methods to standard MR scans, which are more widely available,” Dr. Stoel informed this news organization. “We are engaged in various projects. One project, nearing completion, involves the scoring of early RA, where we train the computer to imitate the actions of rheumatologists or radiologists. We started with a relatively straightforward approach, but AI offers a multitude of possibilities. In the project presented at EULAR, we manipulated the images in a different manner, attempting to predict future events. We also have a parallel project where we employ AI to detect inflammatory changes over time by analyzing sequences of images (MR scans). Furthermore, we have developed AI models to distinguish between treatment and placebo groups. Once the neural network has been trained for this task, we can inquire about the location and timing of changes, thereby gaining insights into the therapy’s response.

“When considering the history of AI, it has experienced both ups and downs. We are currently in a promising phase, but if certain projects fail, expectations might diminish. My hope is that we will indeed revolutionize and enhance disease diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Additionally, AI may provide us with additional information that we, as humans, may not be able to extract from these images. However, it is difficult to predict where we will stand in 5-10 years,” he concluded.
 

Predicting disease progression

The second study, which explored the application of AI in predicting the progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, was presented by Takayuki Fujii, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of advanced medicine for rheumatic diseases at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. “Predicting the progression of RA from UA remains an unmet medical need,” he reminded the audience.

Dr. Takayuki Fujii

Dr. Fujii’s team used data from the KURAMA cohort, a large observational RA cohort from a single center, to develop a machine learning model. The study included a total of 322 patients initially diagnosed with UA. The deep neural network (DNN) model was trained using 24 clinical features that are easily obtainable in routine clinical practice, such as age, sex, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). The DNN model achieved a prediction accuracy of 85.1% in the training cohort. When the model was applied to validation data from an external dataset consisting of 88 patients from the ANSWER cohort, a large multicenter observational RA cohort, the prediction accuracy was 80%.

“We have developed a machine learning model that can predict the progression of RA from UA using clinical parameters,” Dr. Fujii concluded. “This model has the potential to assist rheumatologists in providing appropriate care and timely intervention for patients with UA.”

“Dr. Fujii presented a fascinating study,” Dr. Jans said. “They achieved an accuracy of 80% when applying a DNN model to predict progression from UA to RA. This level of accuracy is relatively high and certainly promising. However, it is important to consider that a pre-test probability of 30% [for progressing from UA to RA]  is also relatively high, which partially explains the high accuracy. Nonetheless, this study represents a significant step forward in the clinical management of patients with UA, as it helps identify those who may benefit the most from regular clinical follow-up.”

Dr. Li and Dr. Stoel report no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Fujii has received speaking fees from Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Chugai, and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Dr. Jans has received speaking fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, and Novartis; he is cofounder of RheumaFinder. The Leiden study was funded by the Dutch Research Council and the China Scholarship Council. The study by Dr. Fujii and colleagues had no outside funding.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Two independent efforts to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict the development of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from patients with signs and symptoms not meeting full disease criteria showed good, near expert-level accuracy, according to findings from two studies presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

In one study, researchers from Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands developed an AI-based method to automatically analyze MR scans of extremities in order to predict early rheumatoid arthritis. The second study involved a Japanese research team that used machine learning to create a model capable of predicting progression from undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA. Both approaches would facilitate early diagnosis of RA, enabling timely treatment and improved clinical outcomes.

Dr. Lennart Jans

Lennart Jans, MD, PhD, who was not involved in either study but works with AI-assisted imaging analysis on a daily basis as head of clinics in musculoskeletal radiology at Ghent University Hospital and a professor of radiology at Ghent University in Belgium, said that integrating AI into health care poses several challenging aspects that need to be addressed. “There are three main challenges associated with the development and implementation of AI-based tools in clinical practice,” he said. “Firstly, obtaining heterogeneous datasets from different image hardware vendors, diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and various ages and genders is crucial for training and testing the AI algorithms. Secondly, AI algorithms need to achieve a predetermined performance level depending on the specific use case. Finally, a regulatory pathway must be followed to obtain the necessary FDA or MDR [medical devices regulation] certification before applying an AI use case in clinical practice.”
 

RA prediction

Yanli Li, the first author of the study and a member of the division of image processing at Leiden University Medical Center, explained the potential benefits of early RA prediction. “If we could determine whether a patient presenting with clinically suspected arthralgia (CSA) or early onset arthritis (EAC) is likely to develop RA in the near future, physicians could initiate treatment earlier, reducing the risk of disease progression.”

Currently, rheumatologists estimate the likelihood of developing RA by visually scoring MR scans using the RAMRIS scoring system. “We decided to explore the use of AI,” Dr. Li explained, “because it could save time, reduce costs and labor, eliminate the need for scoring training, and allow for hypothesis-free discoveries.”

The research team collected MR scans of the hands and feet from Leiden University Medical Center’s radiology department. The dataset consisted of images from 177 healthy individuals, 692 subjects with CSA (including 113 who developed RA), and 969 with EAC (including 447 who developed RA). The images underwent automated preprocessing to remove artifacts and standardize the input for the computer. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to predict RA development within a 2-year time frame.

The training process involved several steps. Initially, the researchers pretrained the model to learn anatomy by masking parts of the images and tasking the computer with reconstructing them. Subsequently, the AI was trained to differentiate between the groups (EAC vs. healthy and CSA vs. healthy), then between RA and other disorders. Finally, the AI model was trained to predict RA.

The accuracy of the model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC). The model that was trained using MR scans of the hands (including the wrist and metacarpophalangeal joints) achieved a mean AUROC of 0.84 for distinguishing EAC from healthy subjects and 0.83 for distinguishing CSA from healthy subjects. The model trained using MR scans of both the hands and feet achieved a mean AUROC of 0.71 for distinguishing RA from non-RA cases in EAC. The accuracy of the model in predicting RA using MR scans of the hands was 0.73, which closely matches the reported accuracy of visual scoring by human experts (0.74). Importantly, the generation and analysis of heat maps suggested that the deep learning model predicts RA based on known inflammatory signals.

“Automatic RA prediction using AI interpretation of MR scans is feasible,” Dr. Li said. “Incorporating additional clinical data will likely further enhance the AI prediction, and the heat maps may contribute to the discovery of new MRI biomarkers for RA development.”

“AI models and engines have achieved near-expertise levels for various use cases, including the early detection of RA on MRI scans of the hands,” said Dr. Jans, the Ghent University radiologist. “We are observing the same progress in AI detection of rheumatic diseases in other imaging modalities, such as radiography, CT, and ultrasound. However, it is important to note that the reported performances often apply to selected cohorts with standardized imaging protocols. The next challenge [for Dr. Li and colleagues, and others] will be to train and test these algorithms using more heterogeneous datasets to make them applicable in real-world settings.”
 

A ‘transitional phase’ of applying AI techniques

“In a medical setting, as computer scientists, we face unique challenges,” pointed out Berend C. Stoel, MSc, PhD, the senior author of the Leiden study. “Our team consists of approximately 30-35 researchers, primarily electrical engineers or computer scientists, situated within the radiology department of Leiden University Medical Center. Our focus is on image processing, seeking AI-based solutions for image analysis, particularly utilizing deep learning techniques.”

Their objective is to validate this method more broadly, and to achieve that, they require collaboration with other hospitals. Up until now, they have primarily worked with a specific type of MR images, extremity MR scans. These scans are conducted in only a few centers equipped with extremity MR scanners, which can accommodate only hands or feet.

“We are currently in a transitional phase, aiming to apply our methods to standard MR scans, which are more widely available,” Dr. Stoel informed this news organization. “We are engaged in various projects. One project, nearing completion, involves the scoring of early RA, where we train the computer to imitate the actions of rheumatologists or radiologists. We started with a relatively straightforward approach, but AI offers a multitude of possibilities. In the project presented at EULAR, we manipulated the images in a different manner, attempting to predict future events. We also have a parallel project where we employ AI to detect inflammatory changes over time by analyzing sequences of images (MR scans). Furthermore, we have developed AI models to distinguish between treatment and placebo groups. Once the neural network has been trained for this task, we can inquire about the location and timing of changes, thereby gaining insights into the therapy’s response.

“When considering the history of AI, it has experienced both ups and downs. We are currently in a promising phase, but if certain projects fail, expectations might diminish. My hope is that we will indeed revolutionize and enhance disease diagnosis, monitoring, and prediction. Additionally, AI may provide us with additional information that we, as humans, may not be able to extract from these images. However, it is difficult to predict where we will stand in 5-10 years,” he concluded.
 

Predicting disease progression

The second study, which explored the application of AI in predicting the progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) to RA, was presented by Takayuki Fujii, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of advanced medicine for rheumatic diseases at Kyoto University’s Graduate School of Medicine in Japan. “Predicting the progression of RA from UA remains an unmet medical need,” he reminded the audience.

Dr. Takayuki Fujii

Dr. Fujii’s team used data from the KURAMA cohort, a large observational RA cohort from a single center, to develop a machine learning model. The study included a total of 322 patients initially diagnosed with UA. The deep neural network (DNN) model was trained using 24 clinical features that are easily obtainable in routine clinical practice, such as age, sex, C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). The DNN model achieved a prediction accuracy of 85.1% in the training cohort. When the model was applied to validation data from an external dataset consisting of 88 patients from the ANSWER cohort, a large multicenter observational RA cohort, the prediction accuracy was 80%.

“We have developed a machine learning model that can predict the progression of RA from UA using clinical parameters,” Dr. Fujii concluded. “This model has the potential to assist rheumatologists in providing appropriate care and timely intervention for patients with UA.”

“Dr. Fujii presented a fascinating study,” Dr. Jans said. “They achieved an accuracy of 80% when applying a DNN model to predict progression from UA to RA. This level of accuracy is relatively high and certainly promising. However, it is important to consider that a pre-test probability of 30% [for progressing from UA to RA]  is also relatively high, which partially explains the high accuracy. Nonetheless, this study represents a significant step forward in the clinical management of patients with UA, as it helps identify those who may benefit the most from regular clinical follow-up.”

Dr. Li and Dr. Stoel report no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Fujii has received speaking fees from Asahi Kasei, AbbVie, Chugai, and Tanabe Mitsubishi Pharma. Dr. Jans has received speaking fees from AbbVie, UCB, Lilly, and Novartis; he is cofounder of RheumaFinder. The Leiden study was funded by the Dutch Research Council and the China Scholarship Council. The study by Dr. Fujii and colleagues had no outside funding.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) does not appear to demonstrate a consistent and significant risk for demyelinating disease, according to a systematic literature review presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The review was conducted by Isabel Castrejon, MD, of the rheumatology department at Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, and colleagues. “In male RA patients, a marginal and slight increase in risk was found. The low number of events provides reassurance regarding the use of these drugs. However, careful consideration is recommended for individuals at the highest risk of demyelinating diseases,” Dr. Castrejon said in an interview. “Health care providers should evaluate the potential benefits and risks of TNFi treatment on a case-by-case basis and closely monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of demyelinating events.”

The researchers performed the review because early data from biologic registries did not provide sufficient clarity, and the association between TNFi exposure and inflammatory central nervous system events remains poorly understood.
 

Key findings from the analyzed data

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues’ review considered 368 studies that included patients with RA, treatment with any biologic including TNFi and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and demyelinating event.

The studies focused on assessing the risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics, particularly TNFi. Some studies included only patients with RA, while others examined mixed forms of arthritis. In cases involving mixed populations, patients with RA were analyzed separately. Additionally, certain studies solely considered multiple sclerosis, while others encompassed various types of demyelinating events. Dr. Castrejon said that a meta-analysis of the studies could not be performed because of their heterogeneity.

Among the 368 studies, four observational cohort studies and three nested case-control studies reported a risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics. Two nested case-control studies indicated an increased risk in mixed populations but did not separately analyze the subgroup of patients with RA. Two observational cohort studies revealed a marginally increased risk in men with RA who undergo TNFi treatment. In the first study, the incidence was 19.7/100,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.3) with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96-1.92), a definite case risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.26), and an RR for male patients of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.31-5.06). The second study had an SIR of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.63-1.93), a RR for patients with RA of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.24-1.72), and male RR of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.45-8.37).

An unresolved question is whether demyelinating events are attributable to the underlying disease itself, which may not have been recognized at the time of diagnosis, or whether they are caused by DMARDs. Additionally, the articles that the reviewers analyzed did not consider patient characteristics that could interact with other factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, that might influence their susceptibility to the development of demyelinating events.

How should clinicians manage patients with RA who are at high risk of developing demyelinating diseases? “Typically, we initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying methotrexate and then progress to other drugs,” Maya H. Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England), said in an interview. “For patients in high-risk groups, there are alternative treatment strategies, especially in comparison to TNFi, where there may be a rationale for their use.” Dr. Buch was not involved in the review.

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) does not appear to demonstrate a consistent and significant risk for demyelinating disease, according to a systematic literature review presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The review was conducted by Isabel Castrejon, MD, of the rheumatology department at Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, and colleagues. “In male RA patients, a marginal and slight increase in risk was found. The low number of events provides reassurance regarding the use of these drugs. However, careful consideration is recommended for individuals at the highest risk of demyelinating diseases,” Dr. Castrejon said in an interview. “Health care providers should evaluate the potential benefits and risks of TNFi treatment on a case-by-case basis and closely monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of demyelinating events.”

The researchers performed the review because early data from biologic registries did not provide sufficient clarity, and the association between TNFi exposure and inflammatory central nervous system events remains poorly understood.
 

Key findings from the analyzed data

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues’ review considered 368 studies that included patients with RA, treatment with any biologic including TNFi and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and demyelinating event.

The studies focused on assessing the risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics, particularly TNFi. Some studies included only patients with RA, while others examined mixed forms of arthritis. In cases involving mixed populations, patients with RA were analyzed separately. Additionally, certain studies solely considered multiple sclerosis, while others encompassed various types of demyelinating events. Dr. Castrejon said that a meta-analysis of the studies could not be performed because of their heterogeneity.

Among the 368 studies, four observational cohort studies and three nested case-control studies reported a risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics. Two nested case-control studies indicated an increased risk in mixed populations but did not separately analyze the subgroup of patients with RA. Two observational cohort studies revealed a marginally increased risk in men with RA who undergo TNFi treatment. In the first study, the incidence was 19.7/100,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.3) with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96-1.92), a definite case risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.26), and an RR for male patients of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.31-5.06). The second study had an SIR of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.63-1.93), a RR for patients with RA of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.24-1.72), and male RR of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.45-8.37).

An unresolved question is whether demyelinating events are attributable to the underlying disease itself, which may not have been recognized at the time of diagnosis, or whether they are caused by DMARDs. Additionally, the articles that the reviewers analyzed did not consider patient characteristics that could interact with other factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, that might influence their susceptibility to the development of demyelinating events.

How should clinicians manage patients with RA who are at high risk of developing demyelinating diseases? “Typically, we initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying methotrexate and then progress to other drugs,” Maya H. Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England), said in an interview. “For patients in high-risk groups, there are alternative treatment strategies, especially in comparison to TNFi, where there may be a rationale for their use.” Dr. Buch was not involved in the review.

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) does not appear to demonstrate a consistent and significant risk for demyelinating disease, according to a systematic literature review presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

The review was conducted by Isabel Castrejon, MD, of the rheumatology department at Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, and colleagues. “In male RA patients, a marginal and slight increase in risk was found. The low number of events provides reassurance regarding the use of these drugs. However, careful consideration is recommended for individuals at the highest risk of demyelinating diseases,” Dr. Castrejon said in an interview. “Health care providers should evaluate the potential benefits and risks of TNFi treatment on a case-by-case basis and closely monitor patients for any signs or symptoms of demyelinating events.”

The researchers performed the review because early data from biologic registries did not provide sufficient clarity, and the association between TNFi exposure and inflammatory central nervous system events remains poorly understood.
 

Key findings from the analyzed data

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues’ review considered 368 studies that included patients with RA, treatment with any biologic including TNFi and synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and demyelinating event.

The studies focused on assessing the risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics, particularly TNFi. Some studies included only patients with RA, while others examined mixed forms of arthritis. In cases involving mixed populations, patients with RA were analyzed separately. Additionally, certain studies solely considered multiple sclerosis, while others encompassed various types of demyelinating events. Dr. Castrejon said that a meta-analysis of the studies could not be performed because of their heterogeneity.

Among the 368 studies, four observational cohort studies and three nested case-control studies reported a risk of demyelinating events following treatment with biologics. Two nested case-control studies indicated an increased risk in mixed populations but did not separately analyze the subgroup of patients with RA. Two observational cohort studies revealed a marginally increased risk in men with RA who undergo TNFi treatment. In the first study, the incidence was 19.7/100,000 patient-years (95% confidence interval, 13.7-27.3) with a standardized incidence ratio of 1.38 (95% CI, 0.96-1.92), a definite case risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.51-1.26), and an RR for male patients of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.31-5.06). The second study had an SIR of 1.11 (95% CI, 0.63-1.93), a RR for patients with RA of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.24-1.72), and male RR of 3.48 (95% CI, 1.45-8.37).

An unresolved question is whether demyelinating events are attributable to the underlying disease itself, which may not have been recognized at the time of diagnosis, or whether they are caused by DMARDs. Additionally, the articles that the reviewers analyzed did not consider patient characteristics that could interact with other factors, such as comorbidities or smoking, that might influence their susceptibility to the development of demyelinating events.

How should clinicians manage patients with RA who are at high risk of developing demyelinating diseases? “Typically, we initiate treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying methotrexate and then progress to other drugs,” Maya H. Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England), said in an interview. “For patients in high-risk groups, there are alternative treatment strategies, especially in comparison to TNFi, where there may be a rationale for their use.” Dr. Buch was not involved in the review.

Dr. Castrejon and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to enhance cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and mitigate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) in a randomized trial. Notably, the positive response in CRF did not coincide with changes in pain or fatigue.

Kristine Norden, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases, Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the late-breaking results of the ExeHeart trial at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. The trial aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of 12 weeks of supervised HIIT in patients with IJD.

Viktor Cap/Thinkstock

Ms. Norden said in an interview that “HIIT is a feasible physiotherapeutic intervention with sustainable effects in patients with IJD. It does not exacerbate symptoms of IJD and can be implemented in primary care settings.”
 

The trial

The ExeHeart trial is a randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effects of HIIT on CRF, CVD risk, and disease activity in patients with IJD. The trial is a collaborative effort with patient research partners and aligns with patients’ requests for effective nonpharmacologic treatments. The outcomes being evaluated include CRF (primary outcome), CVD risk factors, anthropometric measures, disease activity, and patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease, physical activity, and exercise.

A total of 60 patients with IJD were recruited from the Preventive Cardio-Rheuma clinic at Diakonhjemmet. They were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (including relevant lifestyle advice and cardiopreventive medication) or standard care along with a 12-week HIIT intervention supervised by physiotherapists. Assessments were conducted at baseline, at 3 months (primary endpoint), and at 6 months post baseline. There was no supervised intervention between the 3- and 6-month time points.

The median age of the participants was 59 years, with 34 participants (57%) being women. The types of IJD among the participants included rheumatoid arthritis in 45%, spondyloarthritis in 32%, and psoriatic arthritis in 23%. Furthermore, 49 patients (82%) had a high risk for CVD.

The participants were divided into two groups: a control group (n = 30) and a HIIT group (n = 30). The HIIT group underwent a 12-week intervention consisting of twice-a-week supervised 4x4-minute HIIT sessions at 90%-95% of peak heart rate, alternated with moderate activity at 70%. The control group engaged in unsupervised moderate-intensity exercise sessions. The primary outcome measured was the change in CRF, assessed through peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 max}) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Secondary outcomes – pain and fatigue – were evaluated using a questionnaire (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10, where 0 represents no pain or fatigue).

Following HIIT, a statistically significant difference was observed in VO_{2 max} (2.5 mL/kg per min; P < .01) in favor of the exercise group at 3 months, while no significant differences were found in pain and fatigue. This discrepancy in VO_{2 max} between the groups was maintained at 6 months (2.6 mL/kg per min; P < .01), with no notable disparities in pain and fatigue. A per-protocol analysis at 3 months demonstrated a difference in VO_{2 max} between the groups (3.2 mL/kg per min; P < .01).

Ms. Norden concluded that the clinical implications of these findings are significant, as increased CRF achieved through HIIT reflects an improvement in the body’s ability to deliver oxygen to working muscles. Consequently, this enhancement in CRF can lead to overall health improvements and a reduced risk for CVD.
 

Long-lasting effects

Christopher Edwards, MBBS, MD, honorary consultant rheumatologist at University Hospital Southampton (England) NHS Foundation Trust Medicine, University of Southampton, was concerned about future maintenance of increased CRF. “I really wish we had data on these patients at 12 months as well, so we could see if the effects last even longer. Regarding intensity, there are clear indications that engaging in moderate and high-intensity workouts is more beneficial,” Dr. Norden said. “So, I would certainly recommend at least one high-intensity exercise session per week for those patients, while also incorporating lower and moderate-intensity exercises if desired. However, for individuals aiming to maximize their oxygen uptake, high-intensity exercise is considered the most effective approach.”

There is compelling evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in improving disease activity among patients with IJD, making it a critical component of nonpharmacologic treatment. However, individuals with rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions generally exhibit lower levels of physical activity, compared with their healthy counterparts. Recognizing the importance of CVD prevention in patients with IJD, EULAR recommends routine CVD screening for individuals diagnosed with IJD.

Ms. Norden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Dazodalibep, an intravenously administered inhibitor of CD40 ligand, shows promise in reducing disease activity and alleviating key subjective symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, compared with placebo. These preliminary findings are from the initial phase of the ALISS trial, a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial presented at the annul European Congress of Rheumatology.

Over the course of the 169-day trial, both the disease activity score and the patient-reported symptom score dropped significantly for patients who were treated with dazodalibep, also known as VIB4920 or HZN4920, compared with those treated with placebo, meeting both primary endpoints. This benefit was particularly evident for patients who had limited systemic organ involvement but substantial symptom burden.

Dazodalibep is a fusion protein that functions as an inhibitor by blocking the interaction between T cells and CD40-expressing B cells. This inhibition effectively suppresses costimulatory signaling between immune cells. Unlike previous CD40-targeting biologics, dazodalibep does not belong to the antibody class. According to Horizon Thereapeutics, this distinction is expected to help mitigate safety concerns, particularly those related to blood clot formation that were encountered with antibody-based biologics such as ruplizumab, according to Horizon, which acquired the trial’s sponsor, Viela Bio.
 

Patients with moderate to high systemic disease activity

The trial investigated dazodalibep in two patient populations. Wan-Fai Ng, MBBCh, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Newcastle University and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, England, presented results from the first group, which comprised 74 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome with moderate to high systemic disease activity. Disease activity was defined as a score of ≥ 5 on the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI).

A post hoc responder analysis demonstrated that dazodalibep outperformed placebo in patients who achieved a 5- or 6-point improvement on the ESSDAI. Response rates for these patients was 61.1% and 60.0%, respectively, compared with 35.1% and 34.3% for patients who received placebo. Patients who received dazodalibep experienced a reduction of –6.3 ± 0.6 points in ESSDAI score, whereas the placebo group experienced a reduction of –4.1 ± 0.6 points, a difference of –2.2 (P = .0167). However, there was no significant change in any symptom-related score in this population.
 

Patients with unacceptable symptom burden but limited systemic involvement

Also at EULAR 2023, Chiara Baldini, MD, of the University of Pisa, Italy, reported the results from the second group of 109 adult patients with Sjögren’s syndrome who had notable symptom burden but limited systemic organ involvement. “These patients represent a significant portion of individuals with reduced quality of life who are largely excluded from other clinical trials,” Dr. Baldini said in an interview. The study population was defined by having a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) ≥ 5 and, in contrast to the previous group, an ESSDAI score < 5.

In this case, treatment with dazodalibep correlated with a substantial reduction in symptom burden, compared with placebo. Among the patients who received dazodalibep, 66.7% achieved ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15% reduction in symptoms, as measured by ESSPRI, compared with 32.7% in the placebo group. The ESSPRI score decreased by –1.80 ± 0.23 points in the dazodalibep group, while it decreased by –0.53 ± 0.23 points in the placebo group, a difference of −1.27 ± 0.33 points favoring dazodalibep (P = .0002). The reduction in symptoms in the dazodalibep group was evident from the first data point on day 29 and was statistically significant for each of the three symptom components included in the ESSPRI score: dryness, pain, and fatigue.

Additionally, a significant improvement was observed in one of the secondary endpoints, namely, a reduction in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue score. The dazodalibep group exhibited a considerably greater reduction (+8.1 ± 1.4, compared with baseline) than did the placebo group (+2.8 ± 1.4; P = .0095).
 

Dazodalibep safety

“Dazodalibep therapy was generally safe and well tolerated,” Dr. Baldini said in her presentation. Adverse events that were reported for both investigations were generally mild and occurred with similar frequency between the treatment groups. The most commonly reported adverse events, each occurring in more than 5% of patients who received dazodalibep, were COVID-19, diarrhea, anemia, dizziness, ligament sprain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nasopharyngitis. The incidence of COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis was comparable between the treatment and placebo arms.

However, in the patient group with moderate to high systemic disease activity, one patient who was treated with dazodalibep experienced two serious adverse events: a grade 3 SARS-CoV-2 infection, and subsequent death from an unknown cause, which occurred 46 days after the last administration of dazodalibep (12 days after COVID-19 diagnosis). Additionally, there was one case of herpes zoster in a patient treated with dazodalibep. In the group with limited systemic organ involvement, three serious adverse events were reported in the dazodalibep group (pneumonia influenza, postacute COVID-19 syndrome [long COVID], and gammopathy); one serious adverse event (neutropenia) was reported in the placebo group. One patient in the dazodalibep group discontinued participation in the study because of an adverse event, compared with two in the placebo group. Investigators determined that, thus far, all serious adverse events in both populations have been unrelated to the medication.

Throughout the trial, eligible participants in both populations were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous dazodalibep 1,500 mg or placebo every 2 weeks for three doses, followed by every 4 weeks for an additional four doses, up to day 169. The majority of participants in all populations and treatment arms were women (> 90%). Key inclusion criteria were being aged 18 years or older, meeting the 2016 American College of Rheumatology–EULAR classification criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome, and testing positive for anti-SSA and/or rheumatoid factors. Exclusion criteria were having a medical history of thrombosis or anticoagulant use, as well as prior treatment with B cell–depleting therapies. The proportions of patients who received glucocorticoids, antimalarials, or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were consistent between both arms of each population.

“Larger clinical trials are necessary to validate the clinical effectiveness and safety of dazodalibep therapy in this specific subgroup of patients,” Dr. Baldini concluded. Currently, dazodalibep is being studied for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and renal transplant rejection, and Horizon Therapeutics has plans to explore its use in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis.

Dr. Ng has served as a consultant to Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, MedImmune, Resolves Therapeutics, Janssen, and UCB. Dr. Baldini has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The introduction of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in the late 1990s revolutionized treatment of rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), providing patients with another treatment option when conventional therapies were ineffective. However, when these diseases don’t respond to anti-TNF therapy, it is still difficult to determine the next best course of action.

“One of the big challenges we have in treatment of psoriatic arthritis, and I would say rheumatoid arthritis was well, is how to handle patients who have failed their first biologic therapy,” Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, professor of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), told this news organization. “In the case of both RA and PsA, that’s quite frequently an anti-TNF agent.”

For an estimated 30% to 40% of patients, TNF inhibitor therapy is discontinued because of nonresponse or intolerance. Clinicians can switch to another biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or add another conventional DMARD, such as methotrexate. Now, several case studies as well as promising findings from phase 2 clinical trials suggest that combining two biologics could be an alternative strategy to improve patient response to treatment. However, concerns about safety and higher costs remain.
 

Targeting multiple mechanisms of action

Rheumatic conditions affect multiple areas of the body and involve different signaling pathways, said Dr. Ritchlin, who heads the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester. PsA, for example, affects the skin, peripheral joints, the axial skeleton, and the entheses.

“The question is, Are these various manifestations – of which multiple [ones] are often seen in one patient – likely to respond to one therapy that targets one single pathway?” he said.

Combination therapies have been effective in treating leukemia and lymphoma as well as infection with HIV, Melek Yalçin Mutlu, MD, and colleagues from Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and the University Clinic Erlangen (Germany), wrote in a review about combining biologic DMARDs in the treatment of RA and PsA. The review was published in Joint Bone Spine.

“Cumulative evidence on the success of combination therapies in various diseases supports an akin approach in rheumatology, and simultaneous or sequential blockade of multiple mechanisms that generate or propagate arthritis could theoretically enhance efficacy,” the authors wrote. “On the other hand, intervening on multiple targets in the immune system brings about a risk of adverse events, among which infection is a major concern.”
 

Failed clinical trials

Clinical trials of combination biologic therapies for rheumatic disease have been tried before, but these combinations did not show superior efficacy, and they increased patients’ risk for infection. One study published in 2004 compared monotherapy with the TNF inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) to the combination of etanercept and anakinra (Kineret), an interleukin-1 (IL-1) antagonist, in 244 patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy. Researchers found no statistically significant difference in achieving 20% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20), ACR50, or ACR70 between the groups that received etanercept and anakinra and those that received etanercept alone. There were nine serious infections among patients given etanercept and anakinra, including one death due to pneumonia. There were no serious infections in the etanercept monotherapy group.

In another RA trial, 121 patients were given etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and were randomly assigned to also receive a placebo or low-dose abatacept (Orencia), a T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor. There was no significant difference in disease improvement between the two groups, although the rate of serious adverse events was nearly six times higher in the etanercept-abatacept group (16.5% vs. 2.8%).

These studies had a “chilling effect on the whole field for some years,” Brian G. Feagan, MD, the senior scientific director of the gastrointestinal contract research firm Alimentiv in London, Ontario, told this news organization. People were reluctant to try new biologic combinations, owing to the fear that these safety issues would plague subsequent trials.

University of Western Ontario, London

Promising combinations

But a recent phase 2 trial, led by Dr. Feagan, suggests that certain combinations can be effective. In the Janssen-sponsored VEGA trial, researchers found that a combination of guselkumab (Tremfya), an IL-23 inhibitor, and golimumab (Simponi), an anti-TNF agent, was more effective than either drug used as monotherapy for initial induction treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Importantly, there was no difference in adverse events between any of the groups. This same combination therapy is now being tried for patients with active PsA in Janssen’s AFFINITY trial, for which Dr. Ritchlin is one of the lead investigators.

Other trials have also delivered promising results. One study enrolled 51 adults with active RA who were all receiving stable doses of both a TNF inhibitor – either etanercept or adalimumab (Humira) – and methotrexate. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one course of rituximab (Rituxan) or placebo. The researchers found that the safety profile of this TNF inhibitor/methotrexate/rituximab combination was “consistent” with the safety profiles of previous studies of methotrexate/rituximab dual combinations with no TNF inhibitor; there were no new safety signals. At 24 weeks, 30% of the group that received rituximab reached ACR20, compared with 17% of the group that was given placebo. Twelve percent of the rituximab group achieved ACR50, compared with 6% of the group that received placebo.

“B-cell depletion is fundamentally different from cytokine inhibition and even from co-stimulation blockade, making an additive effect more likely,” Dr. Mutlu and colleagues wrote in their review. Reports have also suggested possible benefits of combining a TNF inhibitor and an IL-17 inhibitor in the treatment of RA and PsA, as well as the combination of a TNF inhibitor and an IL-23 antagonist for PsA.

While these combinations require controlled clinical trials, “there’s some smoke signals out there that this might be an effective strategy for some patients,” Dr. Ritchlin said.

In addition to the AFFINITY trial, two clinical trials are underway in France. The first, CRI-RA, is evaluating the combination of baricitinib (Olumiant), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, and adalimumab. Although baricitinib is not a biologic, as a targeted synthetic DMARD, the therapy is more potent than conventional DMARDs, and the same potential safety concerns apply. However, use of a combination of tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and different biologics for RA patients has been reported; no serious side effects were reported over 11 months of therapy. The randomized, placebo-controlled trial began in July 2021 and will enroll 178 patients. The estimated study completion date is July 2025.

“Of note, baricitinib does not directly block signaling downstream of TNF, even if an indirect effect on TNF production is likely to occur,” the CRI-RA entry on clinicaltrials.gov reads. “Targeting multiple inflammatory cytokines in combination may lead to more effective treatment and enhanced clinical responses in patients with RA compared to the current second-line strategies.”

The second trial, SEQUENS-RA, is evaluating the use of TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept for patients with RA who test positive for anticitrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPAs). In the past, the combination of a TNF inhibitor and abatacept did not lead to promising results, but in this trial, the drugs will be administered sequentially.

“Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs [biologic DMARDs], rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors,” according to the clinical trial’s description. “Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors, followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission, would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA-positive patients with RA.”

The randomized trial of 220 participants began in November 2022. The estimated completion date for the study is November 2025.
 

Finding the right patients

Though these studies have had some promising results, the difference in efficacy between biologic monotherapy and dual therapy has been mostly moderate, Dr. Mutlu and coauthors wrote. Identifying disease subtypes for which there might be a higher likelihood of response to dual biologic treatment, especially multidrug-resistant types, could improve efficacies in future trials, they argued. “The good effects of bDMARD combinations in resistant patients in fact point into this direction, though they were observed in uncontrolled studies,” the authors noted.

Insurance coverage remains a “huge challenge” for these dual therapies because of the higher expense, noted Dr. Ritchlin. Better targeting therapies could help convince these companies to pay for these therapies.

“I would say that if we were able to demonstrate a phenotype of a patient that would respond to biologics and not monotherapies, [then] many companies would be amenable to this kind of approach,” he said.

Dr. Ritchlin reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB. Dr. Feagan reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

AT EULAR 2023

MILAN – Safety considerations, particularly regarding the use of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are of utmost importance in the 2023 update to recommendations for managing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Additionally, the selection of therapy should now take into account the complete clinical presentation, explicitly considering nonmusculoskeletal manifestations.

Safety considerations with JAK inhibitors

Expanding on the existing six overarching principles from the 2019 recommendations, the PsA EULAR recommendations now introduce a seventh principle: “The choice of treatment should consider safety considerations regarding individual modes of action to optimize the benefit-risk profile.”

This addition was prompted by recent safety data on JAK inhibitors, which revealed serious potential side effects, such as heart attacks, blood clots, cancer, and severe infections, that recently prompted the European Medicines Agency to restrict their use. As indicated by the new principle, safety considerations have been incorporated into several recommendations.

For instance, in the context of peripheral arthritis, JAK inhibitors may now be considered if there is an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide, and at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

Alternatively, JAK inhibitors may be utilized when bDMARDs are not suitable for other reasons. However, EULAR now emphasizes caution whenever JAK inhibitors are mentioned. Specifically, “careful consideration is necessary for patients aged 65 or above, current or past long-time smokers, individuals with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors, those with other malignancy risk factors, or individuals with a known risk for venous thromboembolism.”
 

Consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations in treatment decisions

In another significant update, EULAR now recommends that the choice of therapy should also consider nonmusculoskeletal manifestations associated with PsA. “There is a notable shift in perspective here,” Dr. Gossec told this news organization. Clinically relevant skin involvement should prompt the use of IL-17A or IL-17A/F or IL-23 or IL-12/23 inhibitors, while uveitis should be treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors.

In the case of inflammatory bowel disease, EULAR advises the use of anti-TNF agents, IL-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors, or a JAK inhibitor. The recommended course of action within each treatment category is not ranked in order of preference, but EULAR emphasizes the importance of following EMA recommendations and considering safety.
 

Systemic glucocorticoids removed

Certain medications have been removed from the recommendations, reflecting the heightened focus on treatment safety. The use of systemic glucocorticoids as adjunctive therapy is no longer recommended. “We always had reservations about their use, and now we have eliminated them. We are aware that they are still utilized, with 30% of patients in Germany, for instance, receiving low doses of glucocorticoids. However, the long-term efficacy/safety balance of glucocorticoids is unfavorable in any disease, particularly in patients with psoriatic arthritis and multiple comorbidities,” Dr. Gossec explained.

NSAIDs and local glucocorticoids are now limited to specific patient populations, namely those affected by oligoarthritis without poor prognostic factors, entheseal disease, or predominant axial disease. Their use should be short-term, generally no longer than 4 weeks. Polyarthritis or oligoarthritis with poor prognostic factors should instead be treated directly with csDMARDs.
 

No specific biologic treatment order recommended for peripheral arthritis

Regarding patients with peripheral arthritis, recent efficacy data have led EULAR to refrain from recommending any specific order of preference for the use of bDMARDs, which encompass TNF inhibitors and drugs targeting the IL-17 and IL-12/23 pathways. “We lack the data to propose an order of preference in patients with peripheral arthritis. Different classes of molecules exhibit efficacy in joint inflammation, generally resulting in a 50% response rate and similar overall effects,” said Dr. Gossec, referencing head-to-head trials between biologics that yielded very comparable results, such as the EXCEED trial or SPIRIT-H2H trial.

The updated recommendations now consider two IL-23p19 inhibitors, guselkumab (Tremfya) and risankizumab (Skyrizi), the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq), and the very recently EMA-approved bimekizumab (Bimzelx), an IL-17A/F double inhibitor.

The recommendation for patients with mono- or oligoarthritis and poor prognostic factors now aligns with the previous recommendations for polyarthritis: A csDMARD should be initiated promptly, with a preference for methotrexate if significant skin involvement is present. New data suggest that methotrexate may be beneficial for enthesitis, achieving resolution in approximately 30% of patients. When considering treatment options, JAK inhibitors may also be taken into account, with safety considerations in mind.

In cases of clinically relevant axial disease and an inadequate response to NSAIDs, therapy with an IL-17A inhibitor, a TNF inhibitor, an IL-17A/F inhibitor, or a JAK inhibitor may be considered. This approach now aligns with the most recent axial spondyloarthritis recommendation from EULAR and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS).
 

Which disease manifestation to treat first?

During the discussion, chairwoman Uta Kiltz, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Rheumatism Center Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany, and clinical lecturer at Ruhr University Bochum, inquired about identifying the primary manifestation to guide the course of action.

“Psoriatic arthritis is highly heterogeneous, and determining the predominant manifestation is sometimes challenging,” Dr. Gossec said. “However, we believe that a certain order of preference is necessary when making treatment decisions. Starting with peripheral arthritis, which can lead to structural damage, allows for treatment selection based on that aspect. If peripheral arthritis is not present, attention should be directed towards axial disease, ensuring the presence of actual inflammation rather than solely axial pain, as mechanical origin axial pain can occur due to the patient’s age.”

David Liew, MBBS, PhD, consultant rheumatologist and clinical pharmacologist at Austin Health in Melbourne, commented on the update to this news organization: “We are fortunate to have a wide range of targeted therapy options for psoriatic arthritis, and these guidelines reflect this abundance of choices. They emphasize the importance of selecting therapies based on specific disease manifestations and tailoring care to each patient’s unique type of psoriatic arthritis. It’s worth noting that some changes in these guidelines were influenced by regulatory changes following ORAL Surveillance. In an era of numerous options, we can afford to be selective at times.”

Regarding safety concerns and JAK inhibitors, Dr. Liew added: “It is not surprising to see these guidelines impose certain restrictions on the use of JAK inhibitors, especially in psoriatic arthritis, where other therapies offer distinct advantages. Until high-quality evidence convincingly points away from a class effect, we can expect to see similar provisions in many more guidelines.”

Many of the recommendations’ authors report financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies. These include AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and Viatris.

EULAR funded the development of the recommendations.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Muscle adiposity may be a novel risk factor for cognitive decline in older adults, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed muscle fat in more than 1,600 adults in their 70s and evaluated their cognitive function over a 10-year period. They found that increases in muscle adiposity from year 1 to year 6 were associated with greater cognitive decline over time, independent of total weight, other fat deposits, muscle characteristics, and traditional dementia risk factors.

The findings were similar between Black and White people and between men and women.

“Increasing adiposity – or fat deposition – in skeletal muscles predicted faster cognitive decline, irrespective of demographics or other disease, and this effect was distinct from that of other types of fat or other muscle characteristics, such as strength or mass,” study investigator Caterina Rosano MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The study was published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Biologically plausible

“There has been a growing recognition that overall adiposity and muscle measures, such as strength and mass, are individual indicators of future dementia risk and both strengthen the algorithms to predict cognitive decline,” said Dr. Rosano, associate director for clinical translation at the University of Pittsburgh’s Aging Institute. “However, adiposity in the muscle has not been examined.”

Some evidence supports a “biologically plausible link” between muscle adiposity and dementia risk. For example, muscle adiposity increases the risk for type 2 diabetes and hypertension, both of which are dementia risk factors.

Skeletal muscle adiposity increases with older age, even in older adults who lose weight, and is “highly prevalent” among older adults of African ancestry.

The researchers examined a large, biracial sample of older adults participating in the Health, Aging and Body Composition study, which enrolled men and women aged between 70 and 79 years. Participants were followed for an average of 9.0 ± 1.8 years.

During years 1 and 6, participants’ body composition was analyzed, including intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT), visceral and subcutaneous adiposity, total fat mass, and muscle area.

In years 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10, participants’ cognition was measured using the modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) exam.

The main independent variable was 5-year change in thigh IMAT (year 6 minus year 1), and the main dependent variable was 3MS decline (from year 5 to year 10).

The researchers adjusted all the models for traditional dementia risk factors at baseline including 3MS, education, apo E4 allele, diabetes, hypertension, and physical activity and also calculated interactions between IMAT change by race or sex.

These models also accounted for change in muscle strength, muscle area, body weight, abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adiposity, and total body fat mass as well as cytokines related to adiposity.
 

‘Rich and engaging crosstalk’

The final sample included 1634 participants (mean age, 73.38 years at baseline; 48% female; 35% Black; mean baseline 3MS score, 91.6).

Thigh IMAT increased by 39.0% in all participants from year 1 to year 6, which corresponded to an increase of 4.85 cm² or 0.97 cm²/year. During the same time period, muscle strength decreased by 14.0% (P < .05), although thigh muscle area remained stable, decreasing less than 0.5%.

There were decreases in both abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adiposity of 3.92% and 6.43%, respectively (P < .05). There was a decrease of 3.3% in 3MS from year 5 to year 10.

Several variables were associated with 3MS decline, independent of any change in thigh IMAT: older age, less education, and having at least one copy of the APOe4 allele. These variables were included in the model of IMAT change predicting 3MS change.

A statistically significant association of IMAT increase with 3MS decline was found. The IMAT increase of 4.85 cm² corresponded to a 3MS decline of an additional 3.6 points (P < .0001) from year 5 to year 10, “indicating a clinically important change.”

The association between increasing thigh IMAT with declining 3MS “remained statistically significant” after adjusting for race, age, education, and apo E4 (P < .0001) and was independent of changes in thigh muscle area, muscle strength, and other adiposity measures.

In participants with increased IMAT in years 1-6, the mean 3MS score fell to approximately 87 points at year 10, compared with those without increased IMAT, with a 3MS score that dropped to approximately 89 points.

Interactions by race and sex were not statistically significant (P > .08).

“Our results suggest that adiposity in muscles can predict cognitive decline, in addition to (not instead of) other traditional dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Rosano.

There is “a rich and engaging crosstalk between muscle, adipose tissue, and the brain all throughout our lives, happening through factors released in the bloodstream that can reach the brain, however, the specific identity of the factors responsible for the crosstalk of muscle adiposity and brain in older adults has not yet been discovered,” she noted.

Although muscle adiposity is “not yet routinely measured in clinical settings, it is being measured opportunistically on clinical CT scans obtained as part of routine patient care,” she added. “These CT measurements have already been validated in many studies of older adults; thus, clinicians could have access to this novel information without additional cost, time, or radiation exposure.”
 

Causality not proven

In a comment, Bruce Albala, PhD, professor, department of environmental and occupational health, University of California, Irvine, noted that the 3MS assessment is scored on a 100-point scale, with a score less than 78 “generally regarded as indicating cognitive impairment or approaching a dementia condition.” In the current study, the mean 3MS score of participants with increased IMAT was still “well above the dementia cut-off.”

Moreover, “even if there is a relationship or correlation between IMAT and cognition, this does not prove or even suggest causality, especially from a biological mechanistic approach,” said Dr. Albaba, an adjunct professor of neurology, who was not involved in the study. “Clearly, more research is needed even to understand the relationship between these two factors.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rosano and coauthors and Dr. Albala declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Muscle adiposity may be a novel risk factor for cognitive decline in older adults, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed muscle fat in more than 1,600 adults in their 70s and evaluated their cognitive function over a 10-year period. They found that increases in muscle adiposity from year 1 to year 6 were associated with greater cognitive decline over time, independent of total weight, other fat deposits, muscle characteristics, and traditional dementia risk factors.

The findings were similar between Black and White people and between men and women.

“Increasing adiposity – or fat deposition – in skeletal muscles predicted faster cognitive decline, irrespective of demographics or other disease, and this effect was distinct from that of other types of fat or other muscle characteristics, such as strength or mass,” study investigator Caterina Rosano MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The study was published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Biologically plausible

“There has been a growing recognition that overall adiposity and muscle measures, such as strength and mass, are individual indicators of future dementia risk and both strengthen the algorithms to predict cognitive decline,” said Dr. Rosano, associate director for clinical translation at the University of Pittsburgh’s Aging Institute. “However, adiposity in the muscle has not been examined.”

Some evidence supports a “biologically plausible link” between muscle adiposity and dementia risk. For example, muscle adiposity increases the risk for type 2 diabetes and hypertension, both of which are dementia risk factors.

Skeletal muscle adiposity increases with older age, even in older adults who lose weight, and is “highly prevalent” among older adults of African ancestry.

The researchers examined a large, biracial sample of older adults participating in the Health, Aging and Body Composition study, which enrolled men and women aged between 70 and 79 years. Participants were followed for an average of 9.0 ± 1.8 years.

During years 1 and 6, participants’ body composition was analyzed, including intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT), visceral and subcutaneous adiposity, total fat mass, and muscle area.

In years 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10, participants’ cognition was measured using the modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) exam.

The main independent variable was 5-year change in thigh IMAT (year 6 minus year 1), and the main dependent variable was 3MS decline (from year 5 to year 10).

The researchers adjusted all the models for traditional dementia risk factors at baseline including 3MS, education, apo E4 allele, diabetes, hypertension, and physical activity and also calculated interactions between IMAT change by race or sex.

These models also accounted for change in muscle strength, muscle area, body weight, abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adiposity, and total body fat mass as well as cytokines related to adiposity.
 

‘Rich and engaging crosstalk’

The final sample included 1634 participants (mean age, 73.38 years at baseline; 48% female; 35% Black; mean baseline 3MS score, 91.6).

Thigh IMAT increased by 39.0% in all participants from year 1 to year 6, which corresponded to an increase of 4.85 cm² or 0.97 cm²/year. During the same time period, muscle strength decreased by 14.0% (P < .05), although thigh muscle area remained stable, decreasing less than 0.5%.

There were decreases in both abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adiposity of 3.92% and 6.43%, respectively (P < .05). There was a decrease of 3.3% in 3MS from year 5 to year 10.

Several variables were associated with 3MS decline, independent of any change in thigh IMAT: older age, less education, and having at least one copy of the APOe4 allele. These variables were included in the model of IMAT change predicting 3MS change.

A statistically significant association of IMAT increase with 3MS decline was found. The IMAT increase of 4.85 cm² corresponded to a 3MS decline of an additional 3.6 points (P < .0001) from year 5 to year 10, “indicating a clinically important change.”

The association between increasing thigh IMAT with declining 3MS “remained statistically significant” after adjusting for race, age, education, and apo E4 (P < .0001) and was independent of changes in thigh muscle area, muscle strength, and other adiposity measures.

In participants with increased IMAT in years 1-6, the mean 3MS score fell to approximately 87 points at year 10, compared with those without increased IMAT, with a 3MS score that dropped to approximately 89 points.

Interactions by race and sex were not statistically significant (P > .08).

“Our results suggest that adiposity in muscles can predict cognitive decline, in addition to (not instead of) other traditional dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Rosano.

There is “a rich and engaging crosstalk between muscle, adipose tissue, and the brain all throughout our lives, happening through factors released in the bloodstream that can reach the brain, however, the specific identity of the factors responsible for the crosstalk of muscle adiposity and brain in older adults has not yet been discovered,” she noted.

Although muscle adiposity is “not yet routinely measured in clinical settings, it is being measured opportunistically on clinical CT scans obtained as part of routine patient care,” she added. “These CT measurements have already been validated in many studies of older adults; thus, clinicians could have access to this novel information without additional cost, time, or radiation exposure.”
 

Causality not proven

In a comment, Bruce Albala, PhD, professor, department of environmental and occupational health, University of California, Irvine, noted that the 3MS assessment is scored on a 100-point scale, with a score less than 78 “generally regarded as indicating cognitive impairment or approaching a dementia condition.” In the current study, the mean 3MS score of participants with increased IMAT was still “well above the dementia cut-off.”

Moreover, “even if there is a relationship or correlation between IMAT and cognition, this does not prove or even suggest causality, especially from a biological mechanistic approach,” said Dr. Albaba, an adjunct professor of neurology, who was not involved in the study. “Clearly, more research is needed even to understand the relationship between these two factors.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rosano and coauthors and Dr. Albala declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Muscle adiposity may be a novel risk factor for cognitive decline in older adults, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed muscle fat in more than 1,600 adults in their 70s and evaluated their cognitive function over a 10-year period. They found that increases in muscle adiposity from year 1 to year 6 were associated with greater cognitive decline over time, independent of total weight, other fat deposits, muscle characteristics, and traditional dementia risk factors.

The findings were similar between Black and White people and between men and women.

“Increasing adiposity – or fat deposition – in skeletal muscles predicted faster cognitive decline, irrespective of demographics or other disease, and this effect was distinct from that of other types of fat or other muscle characteristics, such as strength or mass,” study investigator Caterina Rosano MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The study was published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Biologically plausible

“There has been a growing recognition that overall adiposity and muscle measures, such as strength and mass, are individual indicators of future dementia risk and both strengthen the algorithms to predict cognitive decline,” said Dr. Rosano, associate director for clinical translation at the University of Pittsburgh’s Aging Institute. “However, adiposity in the muscle has not been examined.”

Some evidence supports a “biologically plausible link” between muscle adiposity and dementia risk. For example, muscle adiposity increases the risk for type 2 diabetes and hypertension, both of which are dementia risk factors.

Skeletal muscle adiposity increases with older age, even in older adults who lose weight, and is “highly prevalent” among older adults of African ancestry.

The researchers examined a large, biracial sample of older adults participating in the Health, Aging and Body Composition study, which enrolled men and women aged between 70 and 79 years. Participants were followed for an average of 9.0 ± 1.8 years.

During years 1 and 6, participants’ body composition was analyzed, including intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT), visceral and subcutaneous adiposity, total fat mass, and muscle area.

In years 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10, participants’ cognition was measured using the modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) exam.

The main independent variable was 5-year change in thigh IMAT (year 6 minus year 1), and the main dependent variable was 3MS decline (from year 5 to year 10).

The researchers adjusted all the models for traditional dementia risk factors at baseline including 3MS, education, apo E4 allele, diabetes, hypertension, and physical activity and also calculated interactions between IMAT change by race or sex.

These models also accounted for change in muscle strength, muscle area, body weight, abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adiposity, and total body fat mass as well as cytokines related to adiposity.
 

‘Rich and engaging crosstalk’

The final sample included 1634 participants (mean age, 73.38 years at baseline; 48% female; 35% Black; mean baseline 3MS score, 91.6).

Thigh IMAT increased by 39.0% in all participants from year 1 to year 6, which corresponded to an increase of 4.85 cm² or 0.97 cm²/year. During the same time period, muscle strength decreased by 14.0% (P < .05), although thigh muscle area remained stable, decreasing less than 0.5%.

There were decreases in both abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adiposity of 3.92% and 6.43%, respectively (P < .05). There was a decrease of 3.3% in 3MS from year 5 to year 10.

Several variables were associated with 3MS decline, independent of any change in thigh IMAT: older age, less education, and having at least one copy of the APOe4 allele. These variables were included in the model of IMAT change predicting 3MS change.

A statistically significant association of IMAT increase with 3MS decline was found. The IMAT increase of 4.85 cm² corresponded to a 3MS decline of an additional 3.6 points (P < .0001) from year 5 to year 10, “indicating a clinically important change.”

The association between increasing thigh IMAT with declining 3MS “remained statistically significant” after adjusting for race, age, education, and apo E4 (P < .0001) and was independent of changes in thigh muscle area, muscle strength, and other adiposity measures.

In participants with increased IMAT in years 1-6, the mean 3MS score fell to approximately 87 points at year 10, compared with those without increased IMAT, with a 3MS score that dropped to approximately 89 points.

Interactions by race and sex were not statistically significant (P > .08).

“Our results suggest that adiposity in muscles can predict cognitive decline, in addition to (not instead of) other traditional dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Rosano.

There is “a rich and engaging crosstalk between muscle, adipose tissue, and the brain all throughout our lives, happening through factors released in the bloodstream that can reach the brain, however, the specific identity of the factors responsible for the crosstalk of muscle adiposity and brain in older adults has not yet been discovered,” she noted.

Although muscle adiposity is “not yet routinely measured in clinical settings, it is being measured opportunistically on clinical CT scans obtained as part of routine patient care,” she added. “These CT measurements have already been validated in many studies of older adults; thus, clinicians could have access to this novel information without additional cost, time, or radiation exposure.”
 

Causality not proven

In a comment, Bruce Albala, PhD, professor, department of environmental and occupational health, University of California, Irvine, noted that the 3MS assessment is scored on a 100-point scale, with a score less than 78 “generally regarded as indicating cognitive impairment or approaching a dementia condition.” In the current study, the mean 3MS score of participants with increased IMAT was still “well above the dementia cut-off.”

Moreover, “even if there is a relationship or correlation between IMAT and cognition, this does not prove or even suggest causality, especially from a biological mechanistic approach,” said Dr. Albaba, an adjunct professor of neurology, who was not involved in the study. “Clearly, more research is needed even to understand the relationship between these two factors.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rosano and coauthors and Dr. Albala declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.