MDedge Rheumatology

Linda Bluestein remembers all the doctors who missed, ignored, or incompletely diagnosed her chronic illness.

There was the orthopedic surgeon who noted her hyperextended elbows but failed to check any of her other joints. The gastroenterologist who insisted on performing multiple scoping procedures but wouldn’t discuss how to manage her symptoms. The other surgeon who, after performing arthroscopy on her injured knee, yelled at her: “There is nothing wrong with your knee! You’re fine!” in a room full of people.

And then there was the rheumatologist who said: “Oh, you want something to be wrong with you?”

“No,” she replied, “I want an explanation. I want to keep working. I just want to know why these things keep happening to me.”

The medical frustration she experienced was especially difficult because, like her health care providers, Linda Bluestein has an MD after her name. She is a board-certified anesthesiologist and integrative medicine physician.

Living with a chronic illness is a challenge for any patient. But physicians who are diagnosed with chronic conditions face a unique set of personal and professional issues.

Along with the physically demanding schedule of medical practice, they must cope with what many call a “culture of invincibility” within medicine. Doctors are not supposed to get sick. In fact, the unwritten rule is presenteeism – to function without adequate food or sleep and to never prioritize their own self-care over their dedication to their patients.

Whether their conditions are visible, such as muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis, or invisible, such as fibromyalgia and mental illnesses – and now, long COVID – these doctors often meet significant stigma. They fight the assumption that they are less capable than their colleagues.

But they also experience an invaluable benefit: They gain firsthand knowledge of the patient experience, a profound understanding which, they say, enhances how they care for their own patients.
 

What it takes to become a doctor when you have a chronic condition

In short, it’s not easy.

Data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey show that more than half of U.S. adults had at least one of several chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney problems. Nearly a third of respondents had more than one condition. But fewer than 5% of medical students and 3% of practicing physicians report having a chronic illness or disability, according to studies from 2019 and 2021.

While that could mean that fewer people with chronic illness enter medicine, cases also exist in which aspiring physicians with conditions were dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine at all.

Amy Stenehjem, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, is one of the exceptions. Diagnosed with several autoimmune-related conditions as a teenager and young adult, Dr. Stenehjem was determined to become a doctor. In her 20s, her health was relatively stable, and she was able to manage medical school and residency. Her training institutions agreed to provide some accommodations that helped her succeed.

“They let me build some flexibility into the training,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “In medical school, when I knew I wasn’t going to be able to do a particular specialty as a career, they let me work with an attending doctor that did not require a lot of on-call time during that particular rotation.”

Dr. Stenehjem specialized in chronic neck and back disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and autoimmune-related diseases. She practiced for more than a decade. But in 2011, her condition spiraled. She couldn’t walk a few steps or even sit upright without experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath. She had debilitating fatigue and episodes of fever, rash, headaches, and joint pain.

It would take 7 years and more than 20 doctors to determine Dr. Stenehjem’s multiple diagnoses. In addition to her autoimmune diseases, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoinflammatory periodic fever syndrome, Lyme disease, and reactivated Epstein-Barr infection.

While she suspects that her providers gave her more “leeway” because she was a physician, many did not show a deep understanding of the severity of her symptoms and the impact those symptoms had.

“When I was practicing, I really didn’t fully understand the impact chronic illness had on my patients,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “Things like chronic dizziness, headaches, fatigue, pain, or brain fog can be really hard to understand unless you’ve experienced these symptoms. When I got sick, I finally realized, ‘Oh my goodness, when a patient says they’re dealing with fatigue, this is not your normal, I’m-super-tired-from-being-on-call fatigue. This is I-can’t-get-out-of-bed fatigue.’ That’s what people with chronic illness often deal with on a daily basis.”
 

Treating the individual

Dr. Stenehjem was aware that her chronic illness would affect her medical career. For Jason Baker, MD, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, it came as a shock. Dr. Baker was a third-year medical student when he experienced increased urination and rapid weight loss. It was only when friends pressed him to visit student health that a blood test revealed type 1 diabetes. Dr. Baker suddenly found himself lying in a hospital bed.

He remembers an attending physician who simply handed him a textbook on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and a resident who informed him that he had kidney damage, which turned out to be untrue. Neither discussed the psychological issues from a frightening diagnosis that would require lifelong, daily management.

“There certainly could have been a bit more empathy from some of the people I dealt with early on,” he said.

Although his training gave him a stark picture of worst-case scenarios, Dr. Baker found that knowledge motivating. “I’d already seen patients come in who had diabetes complications,” Dr. Baker says. “I vowed to never ever get those complications. It was a good balance of fear and motivation.”

Dr. Baker had not planned to specialize in endocrinology, but he quickly realized that his personal diagnosis could help others. Now he often shares his experience with his patients who have diabetes, which he says makes them more comfortable discussing their own problems.

His approach, Dr. Baker explained, is to treat everyone as an individual. Trying to neatly classify patients with chronic illness is a common mistake he notices among physicians.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about type 1 versus type 2 [diabetes],” Dr. Baker said, “and trying to categorize people when sometimes people can’t be categorized. That’s really with any chronic condition; there’s no one size fits all.”

Managing his health is still a time-consuming task. At work, he needs breaks to eat, check his blood sugar, or take insulin. “During the workday seeing patients, I have to also remember that I’m a patient,” Dr. Baker said. “I have to be okay with prioritizing my own health. Otherwise I can’t help anybody.”
 

‘I am not the doctor for you’

Chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension are familiar to most doctors, and with good management, patients can usually function normally. When chronic conditions become disabling, however, attitudes in the medical field can change.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from studies, people with disabilities experience significant disparities and barriers to care. Some of this can be linked to social determinants of health. People with disabilities are more likely to be poor and to rely on Medicare and Medicaid for insurance coverage. But lack of training, unwillingness to provide accommodations, ignorance of legal requirements, and inaccurate assumptions among physicians also play a role.

These are themes that Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has heard from hundreds of patients with disabilities during the more than 25 years that she has conducted research.

In late 2019, Dr. Iezzoni and coinvestigators fielded a national survey of 714 practicing physicians. Only 40.7% reported they were “very confident” that they could provide the same quality of care to patients with disabilities as they do for other patients. And only 56.5% “strongly agreed” that they welcomed these patients into their practices.

The survey was conducted through a series of small focus groups that Dr. Iezzoni held with physicians in 2018. These yielded views that were startling, and in some cases, overtly discriminatory:

• Doctors complained about the “burden” of caring for a patient with a disability.
• They lacked the time or equipment, such as accessible exam tables or weight scales.
• They admitted to inventing excuses for why appointments were not available or routine diagnostic tests were not performed.
• They described being fearful of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The overall message was summed up in one doctor’s statement: “I am not the doctor for you.”

“Doctors are people too,” Dr. Iezzoni pointed out. “And so they reflect the same prejudices and stigmatized attitudes of the rest of the population. It might be implicit, so they might not be aware of it. [But] it might be explicit.”

Ableism in the medical field is all too familiar to Dr. Iezzoni. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 26 during her first year at Harvard Medical School in the early 1980s. Despite symptom flare-ups, Dr. Iezzoni was able to graduate with her class, but many instructors and administrators had little interest in accommodating her physical limitations. In fact, several physicians discouraged her from continuing to train.

Unable to take call, run up flights of stairs, or stand for hours at a time, Dr. Iezzoni remembers being told by a senior surgeon that she shouldn’t become a doctor since she lacked the “most important quality,” which was “24/7 availability.” A hospital CEO informed her: “There are too many doctors in the country right now for us to worry about training a handicapped physician. If that means that some people get left by the wayside, so be it.”

Ultimately, Harvard Medical School declined to write Dr. Iezzoni a letter of recommendation for an internship. She would never practice medicine. “My career was just truncated from the start,” Dr. Iezzoni said. “It never happened because of discrimination.”

She later learned the legal term for her treatment: constructive dismissal.

“The medical school didn’t outright say, ‘Go away. We’re not allowing you to graduate.’ ” Dr. Iezzoni explained. “But they made my life so difficult that I did so voluntarily.”

Dr. Iezzoni graduated in 1984, before the passage of the ADA in 1990, and she refers to her experience as a “ghost from the past,” a historical reminder of how the legal landscape has changed – even though the tendency toward bias may not have.
 

The fight for inclusion

Zainub Dhanani, a fifth-year medical student at Stanford (Calif.) University, won’t forget an interview at one of the other schools to which she applied. The interviewer asked how she expected to be in a hospital all day if she had a chronic illness.

“Does it really make sense?” he wanted to know.

The question shocked her in the moment, but now she sees this type of bias as linked to the inequalities that many marginalized groups face in health care and beyond. That’s also why she believes physician-patients are crucial to improve the quality of care for people with chronic illness and other groups that face discrimination.

Who else, she wonders, could provide that “reaffirming” experience for patients or have that “unique edge” other than a provider who has navigated the same world?

Ms. Dhanani is the executive director and founder of Medical Students With Disability and Chronic Illness, an organization dedicated to empowering these students through advocacy, education, accessibility, and community. The group now has 19 chapters at medical schools across the country.

Ms. Dhanani said she has received excellent accommodations from Stanford for her own condition (which she prefers not to disclose), but all medical schools are not as responsive to students with various physical needs. Her organization offers support and resources to inform these future physicians about their options and rights.

“Disability justice is also racial justice,” Ms. Dhanani stressed. “It’s also environmental justice. It’s also gender and sexuality-based justice. Those compounded layers of biases lead to worse and worse levels of care. As a patient, it’s terrifying. And as a future physician, it’s tragic to know that this is something so pervasive and yet so under-addressed in medicine.”
 

Soldiering on

Unfortunately, for some physicians with chronic illness, there are no practical accommodations that could save their careers in clinical practice.

Dr. Stenehjem now works part-time as a health consultant, helping those with chronic illnesses navigate their health care systems.

Dr. Bluestein offers a similar coaching service to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) and other connective tissue and hypermobility disorders. Because of her own EDS, she can no longer practice as an anesthesiologist but instead opened an integrative pain management practice for patients with complex pain conditions..

She believes the idea that doctors are “invincible” needs to change. She recalls the time her former group practice told her in no uncertain terms to “never call in sick.”

The stories she hears from her current clients are similar to her own. She can empathize, knowing firsthand the physical and psychological damage these attitudes can cause.

“When I was at my worst physically, I was also at my worst psychologically,” said Dr. Bluestein. “We tend to think of them as separate, but they go hand in hand. If we can validate people’s experiences rather than disregard them, it has a positive forward cycle, as opposed to the reverse, which is what usually happens.”

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

Linda Bluestein remembers all the doctors who missed, ignored, or incompletely diagnosed her chronic illness.

There was the orthopedic surgeon who noted her hyperextended elbows but failed to check any of her other joints. The gastroenterologist who insisted on performing multiple scoping procedures but wouldn’t discuss how to manage her symptoms. The other surgeon who, after performing arthroscopy on her injured knee, yelled at her: “There is nothing wrong with your knee! You’re fine!” in a room full of people.

And then there was the rheumatologist who said: “Oh, you want something to be wrong with you?”

“No,” she replied, “I want an explanation. I want to keep working. I just want to know why these things keep happening to me.”

The medical frustration she experienced was especially difficult because, like her health care providers, Linda Bluestein has an MD after her name. She is a board-certified anesthesiologist and integrative medicine physician.

Living with a chronic illness is a challenge for any patient. But physicians who are diagnosed with chronic conditions face a unique set of personal and professional issues.

Along with the physically demanding schedule of medical practice, they must cope with what many call a “culture of invincibility” within medicine. Doctors are not supposed to get sick. In fact, the unwritten rule is presenteeism – to function without adequate food or sleep and to never prioritize their own self-care over their dedication to their patients.

Whether their conditions are visible, such as muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis, or invisible, such as fibromyalgia and mental illnesses – and now, long COVID – these doctors often meet significant stigma. They fight the assumption that they are less capable than their colleagues.

But they also experience an invaluable benefit: They gain firsthand knowledge of the patient experience, a profound understanding which, they say, enhances how they care for their own patients.
 

What it takes to become a doctor when you have a chronic condition

In short, it’s not easy.

Data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey show that more than half of U.S. adults had at least one of several chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney problems. Nearly a third of respondents had more than one condition. But fewer than 5% of medical students and 3% of practicing physicians report having a chronic illness or disability, according to studies from 2019 and 2021.

While that could mean that fewer people with chronic illness enter medicine, cases also exist in which aspiring physicians with conditions were dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine at all.

Amy Stenehjem, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, is one of the exceptions. Diagnosed with several autoimmune-related conditions as a teenager and young adult, Dr. Stenehjem was determined to become a doctor. In her 20s, her health was relatively stable, and she was able to manage medical school and residency. Her training institutions agreed to provide some accommodations that helped her succeed.

“They let me build some flexibility into the training,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “In medical school, when I knew I wasn’t going to be able to do a particular specialty as a career, they let me work with an attending doctor that did not require a lot of on-call time during that particular rotation.”

Dr. Stenehjem specialized in chronic neck and back disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and autoimmune-related diseases. She practiced for more than a decade. But in 2011, her condition spiraled. She couldn’t walk a few steps or even sit upright without experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath. She had debilitating fatigue and episodes of fever, rash, headaches, and joint pain.

It would take 7 years and more than 20 doctors to determine Dr. Stenehjem’s multiple diagnoses. In addition to her autoimmune diseases, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoinflammatory periodic fever syndrome, Lyme disease, and reactivated Epstein-Barr infection.

While she suspects that her providers gave her more “leeway” because she was a physician, many did not show a deep understanding of the severity of her symptoms and the impact those symptoms had.

“When I was practicing, I really didn’t fully understand the impact chronic illness had on my patients,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “Things like chronic dizziness, headaches, fatigue, pain, or brain fog can be really hard to understand unless you’ve experienced these symptoms. When I got sick, I finally realized, ‘Oh my goodness, when a patient says they’re dealing with fatigue, this is not your normal, I’m-super-tired-from-being-on-call fatigue. This is I-can’t-get-out-of-bed fatigue.’ That’s what people with chronic illness often deal with on a daily basis.”
 

Treating the individual

Dr. Stenehjem was aware that her chronic illness would affect her medical career. For Jason Baker, MD, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, it came as a shock. Dr. Baker was a third-year medical student when he experienced increased urination and rapid weight loss. It was only when friends pressed him to visit student health that a blood test revealed type 1 diabetes. Dr. Baker suddenly found himself lying in a hospital bed.

He remembers an attending physician who simply handed him a textbook on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and a resident who informed him that he had kidney damage, which turned out to be untrue. Neither discussed the psychological issues from a frightening diagnosis that would require lifelong, daily management.

“There certainly could have been a bit more empathy from some of the people I dealt with early on,” he said.

Although his training gave him a stark picture of worst-case scenarios, Dr. Baker found that knowledge motivating. “I’d already seen patients come in who had diabetes complications,” Dr. Baker says. “I vowed to never ever get those complications. It was a good balance of fear and motivation.”

Dr. Baker had not planned to specialize in endocrinology, but he quickly realized that his personal diagnosis could help others. Now he often shares his experience with his patients who have diabetes, which he says makes them more comfortable discussing their own problems.

His approach, Dr. Baker explained, is to treat everyone as an individual. Trying to neatly classify patients with chronic illness is a common mistake he notices among physicians.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about type 1 versus type 2 [diabetes],” Dr. Baker said, “and trying to categorize people when sometimes people can’t be categorized. That’s really with any chronic condition; there’s no one size fits all.”

Managing his health is still a time-consuming task. At work, he needs breaks to eat, check his blood sugar, or take insulin. “During the workday seeing patients, I have to also remember that I’m a patient,” Dr. Baker said. “I have to be okay with prioritizing my own health. Otherwise I can’t help anybody.”
 

‘I am not the doctor for you’

Chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension are familiar to most doctors, and with good management, patients can usually function normally. When chronic conditions become disabling, however, attitudes in the medical field can change.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from studies, people with disabilities experience significant disparities and barriers to care. Some of this can be linked to social determinants of health. People with disabilities are more likely to be poor and to rely on Medicare and Medicaid for insurance coverage. But lack of training, unwillingness to provide accommodations, ignorance of legal requirements, and inaccurate assumptions among physicians also play a role.

These are themes that Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has heard from hundreds of patients with disabilities during the more than 25 years that she has conducted research.

In late 2019, Dr. Iezzoni and coinvestigators fielded a national survey of 714 practicing physicians. Only 40.7% reported they were “very confident” that they could provide the same quality of care to patients with disabilities as they do for other patients. And only 56.5% “strongly agreed” that they welcomed these patients into their practices.

The survey was conducted through a series of small focus groups that Dr. Iezzoni held with physicians in 2018. These yielded views that were startling, and in some cases, overtly discriminatory:

• Doctors complained about the “burden” of caring for a patient with a disability.
• They lacked the time or equipment, such as accessible exam tables or weight scales.
• They admitted to inventing excuses for why appointments were not available or routine diagnostic tests were not performed.
• They described being fearful of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The overall message was summed up in one doctor’s statement: “I am not the doctor for you.”

“Doctors are people too,” Dr. Iezzoni pointed out. “And so they reflect the same prejudices and stigmatized attitudes of the rest of the population. It might be implicit, so they might not be aware of it. [But] it might be explicit.”

Ableism in the medical field is all too familiar to Dr. Iezzoni. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 26 during her first year at Harvard Medical School in the early 1980s. Despite symptom flare-ups, Dr. Iezzoni was able to graduate with her class, but many instructors and administrators had little interest in accommodating her physical limitations. In fact, several physicians discouraged her from continuing to train.

Unable to take call, run up flights of stairs, or stand for hours at a time, Dr. Iezzoni remembers being told by a senior surgeon that she shouldn’t become a doctor since she lacked the “most important quality,” which was “24/7 availability.” A hospital CEO informed her: “There are too many doctors in the country right now for us to worry about training a handicapped physician. If that means that some people get left by the wayside, so be it.”

Ultimately, Harvard Medical School declined to write Dr. Iezzoni a letter of recommendation for an internship. She would never practice medicine. “My career was just truncated from the start,” Dr. Iezzoni said. “It never happened because of discrimination.”

She later learned the legal term for her treatment: constructive dismissal.

“The medical school didn’t outright say, ‘Go away. We’re not allowing you to graduate.’ ” Dr. Iezzoni explained. “But they made my life so difficult that I did so voluntarily.”

Dr. Iezzoni graduated in 1984, before the passage of the ADA in 1990, and she refers to her experience as a “ghost from the past,” a historical reminder of how the legal landscape has changed – even though the tendency toward bias may not have.
 

The fight for inclusion

Zainub Dhanani, a fifth-year medical student at Stanford (Calif.) University, won’t forget an interview at one of the other schools to which she applied. The interviewer asked how she expected to be in a hospital all day if she had a chronic illness.

“Does it really make sense?” he wanted to know.

The question shocked her in the moment, but now she sees this type of bias as linked to the inequalities that many marginalized groups face in health care and beyond. That’s also why she believes physician-patients are crucial to improve the quality of care for people with chronic illness and other groups that face discrimination.

Who else, she wonders, could provide that “reaffirming” experience for patients or have that “unique edge” other than a provider who has navigated the same world?

Ms. Dhanani is the executive director and founder of Medical Students With Disability and Chronic Illness, an organization dedicated to empowering these students through advocacy, education, accessibility, and community. The group now has 19 chapters at medical schools across the country.

Ms. Dhanani said she has received excellent accommodations from Stanford for her own condition (which she prefers not to disclose), but all medical schools are not as responsive to students with various physical needs. Her organization offers support and resources to inform these future physicians about their options and rights.

“Disability justice is also racial justice,” Ms. Dhanani stressed. “It’s also environmental justice. It’s also gender and sexuality-based justice. Those compounded layers of biases lead to worse and worse levels of care. As a patient, it’s terrifying. And as a future physician, it’s tragic to know that this is something so pervasive and yet so under-addressed in medicine.”
 

Soldiering on

Unfortunately, for some physicians with chronic illness, there are no practical accommodations that could save their careers in clinical practice.

Dr. Stenehjem now works part-time as a health consultant, helping those with chronic illnesses navigate their health care systems.

Dr. Bluestein offers a similar coaching service to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) and other connective tissue and hypermobility disorders. Because of her own EDS, she can no longer practice as an anesthesiologist but instead opened an integrative pain management practice for patients with complex pain conditions..

She believes the idea that doctors are “invincible” needs to change. She recalls the time her former group practice told her in no uncertain terms to “never call in sick.”

The stories she hears from her current clients are similar to her own. She can empathize, knowing firsthand the physical and psychological damage these attitudes can cause.

“When I was at my worst physically, I was also at my worst psychologically,” said Dr. Bluestein. “We tend to think of them as separate, but they go hand in hand. If we can validate people’s experiences rather than disregard them, it has a positive forward cycle, as opposed to the reverse, which is what usually happens.”

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

Linda Bluestein remembers all the doctors who missed, ignored, or incompletely diagnosed her chronic illness.

There was the orthopedic surgeon who noted her hyperextended elbows but failed to check any of her other joints. The gastroenterologist who insisted on performing multiple scoping procedures but wouldn’t discuss how to manage her symptoms. The other surgeon who, after performing arthroscopy on her injured knee, yelled at her: “There is nothing wrong with your knee! You’re fine!” in a room full of people.

And then there was the rheumatologist who said: “Oh, you want something to be wrong with you?”

“No,” she replied, “I want an explanation. I want to keep working. I just want to know why these things keep happening to me.”

The medical frustration she experienced was especially difficult because, like her health care providers, Linda Bluestein has an MD after her name. She is a board-certified anesthesiologist and integrative medicine physician.

Living with a chronic illness is a challenge for any patient. But physicians who are diagnosed with chronic conditions face a unique set of personal and professional issues.

Along with the physically demanding schedule of medical practice, they must cope with what many call a “culture of invincibility” within medicine. Doctors are not supposed to get sick. In fact, the unwritten rule is presenteeism – to function without adequate food or sleep and to never prioritize their own self-care over their dedication to their patients.

Whether their conditions are visible, such as muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis, or invisible, such as fibromyalgia and mental illnesses – and now, long COVID – these doctors often meet significant stigma. They fight the assumption that they are less capable than their colleagues.

But they also experience an invaluable benefit: They gain firsthand knowledge of the patient experience, a profound understanding which, they say, enhances how they care for their own patients.
 

What it takes to become a doctor when you have a chronic condition

In short, it’s not easy.

Data from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey show that more than half of U.S. adults had at least one of several chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and kidney problems. Nearly a third of respondents had more than one condition. But fewer than 5% of medical students and 3% of practicing physicians report having a chronic illness or disability, according to studies from 2019 and 2021.

While that could mean that fewer people with chronic illness enter medicine, cases also exist in which aspiring physicians with conditions were dissuaded from pursuing a career in medicine at all.

Amy Stenehjem, MD, a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, is one of the exceptions. Diagnosed with several autoimmune-related conditions as a teenager and young adult, Dr. Stenehjem was determined to become a doctor. In her 20s, her health was relatively stable, and she was able to manage medical school and residency. Her training institutions agreed to provide some accommodations that helped her succeed.

“They let me build some flexibility into the training,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “In medical school, when I knew I wasn’t going to be able to do a particular specialty as a career, they let me work with an attending doctor that did not require a lot of on-call time during that particular rotation.”

Dr. Stenehjem specialized in chronic neck and back disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis), and autoimmune-related diseases. She practiced for more than a decade. But in 2011, her condition spiraled. She couldn’t walk a few steps or even sit upright without experiencing dizziness and shortness of breath. She had debilitating fatigue and episodes of fever, rash, headaches, and joint pain.

It would take 7 years and more than 20 doctors to determine Dr. Stenehjem’s multiple diagnoses. In addition to her autoimmune diseases, she was diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, autoinflammatory periodic fever syndrome, Lyme disease, and reactivated Epstein-Barr infection.

While she suspects that her providers gave her more “leeway” because she was a physician, many did not show a deep understanding of the severity of her symptoms and the impact those symptoms had.

“When I was practicing, I really didn’t fully understand the impact chronic illness had on my patients,” Dr. Stenehjem said. “Things like chronic dizziness, headaches, fatigue, pain, or brain fog can be really hard to understand unless you’ve experienced these symptoms. When I got sick, I finally realized, ‘Oh my goodness, when a patient says they’re dealing with fatigue, this is not your normal, I’m-super-tired-from-being-on-call fatigue. This is I-can’t-get-out-of-bed fatigue.’ That’s what people with chronic illness often deal with on a daily basis.”
 

Treating the individual

Dr. Stenehjem was aware that her chronic illness would affect her medical career. For Jason Baker, MD, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, it came as a shock. Dr. Baker was a third-year medical student when he experienced increased urination and rapid weight loss. It was only when friends pressed him to visit student health that a blood test revealed type 1 diabetes. Dr. Baker suddenly found himself lying in a hospital bed.

He remembers an attending physician who simply handed him a textbook on diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and a resident who informed him that he had kidney damage, which turned out to be untrue. Neither discussed the psychological issues from a frightening diagnosis that would require lifelong, daily management.

“There certainly could have been a bit more empathy from some of the people I dealt with early on,” he said.

Although his training gave him a stark picture of worst-case scenarios, Dr. Baker found that knowledge motivating. “I’d already seen patients come in who had diabetes complications,” Dr. Baker says. “I vowed to never ever get those complications. It was a good balance of fear and motivation.”

Dr. Baker had not planned to specialize in endocrinology, but he quickly realized that his personal diagnosis could help others. Now he often shares his experience with his patients who have diabetes, which he says makes them more comfortable discussing their own problems.

His approach, Dr. Baker explained, is to treat everyone as an individual. Trying to neatly classify patients with chronic illness is a common mistake he notices among physicians.

“There’s a lot of misunderstanding about type 1 versus type 2 [diabetes],” Dr. Baker said, “and trying to categorize people when sometimes people can’t be categorized. That’s really with any chronic condition; there’s no one size fits all.”

Managing his health is still a time-consuming task. At work, he needs breaks to eat, check his blood sugar, or take insulin. “During the workday seeing patients, I have to also remember that I’m a patient,” Dr. Baker said. “I have to be okay with prioritizing my own health. Otherwise I can’t help anybody.”
 

‘I am not the doctor for you’

Chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension are familiar to most doctors, and with good management, patients can usually function normally. When chronic conditions become disabling, however, attitudes in the medical field can change.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and from studies, people with disabilities experience significant disparities and barriers to care. Some of this can be linked to social determinants of health. People with disabilities are more likely to be poor and to rely on Medicare and Medicaid for insurance coverage. But lack of training, unwillingness to provide accommodations, ignorance of legal requirements, and inaccurate assumptions among physicians also play a role.

These are themes that Lisa Iezzoni, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, has heard from hundreds of patients with disabilities during the more than 25 years that she has conducted research.

In late 2019, Dr. Iezzoni and coinvestigators fielded a national survey of 714 practicing physicians. Only 40.7% reported they were “very confident” that they could provide the same quality of care to patients with disabilities as they do for other patients. And only 56.5% “strongly agreed” that they welcomed these patients into their practices.

The survey was conducted through a series of small focus groups that Dr. Iezzoni held with physicians in 2018. These yielded views that were startling, and in some cases, overtly discriminatory:

• Doctors complained about the “burden” of caring for a patient with a disability.
• They lacked the time or equipment, such as accessible exam tables or weight scales.
• They admitted to inventing excuses for why appointments were not available or routine diagnostic tests were not performed.
• They described being fearful of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The overall message was summed up in one doctor’s statement: “I am not the doctor for you.”

“Doctors are people too,” Dr. Iezzoni pointed out. “And so they reflect the same prejudices and stigmatized attitudes of the rest of the population. It might be implicit, so they might not be aware of it. [But] it might be explicit.”

Ableism in the medical field is all too familiar to Dr. Iezzoni. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 26 during her first year at Harvard Medical School in the early 1980s. Despite symptom flare-ups, Dr. Iezzoni was able to graduate with her class, but many instructors and administrators had little interest in accommodating her physical limitations. In fact, several physicians discouraged her from continuing to train.

Unable to take call, run up flights of stairs, or stand for hours at a time, Dr. Iezzoni remembers being told by a senior surgeon that she shouldn’t become a doctor since she lacked the “most important quality,” which was “24/7 availability.” A hospital CEO informed her: “There are too many doctors in the country right now for us to worry about training a handicapped physician. If that means that some people get left by the wayside, so be it.”

Ultimately, Harvard Medical School declined to write Dr. Iezzoni a letter of recommendation for an internship. She would never practice medicine. “My career was just truncated from the start,” Dr. Iezzoni said. “It never happened because of discrimination.”

She later learned the legal term for her treatment: constructive dismissal.

“The medical school didn’t outright say, ‘Go away. We’re not allowing you to graduate.’ ” Dr. Iezzoni explained. “But they made my life so difficult that I did so voluntarily.”

Dr. Iezzoni graduated in 1984, before the passage of the ADA in 1990, and she refers to her experience as a “ghost from the past,” a historical reminder of how the legal landscape has changed – even though the tendency toward bias may not have.
 

The fight for inclusion

Zainub Dhanani, a fifth-year medical student at Stanford (Calif.) University, won’t forget an interview at one of the other schools to which she applied. The interviewer asked how she expected to be in a hospital all day if she had a chronic illness.

“Does it really make sense?” he wanted to know.

The question shocked her in the moment, but now she sees this type of bias as linked to the inequalities that many marginalized groups face in health care and beyond. That’s also why she believes physician-patients are crucial to improve the quality of care for people with chronic illness and other groups that face discrimination.

Who else, she wonders, could provide that “reaffirming” experience for patients or have that “unique edge” other than a provider who has navigated the same world?

Ms. Dhanani is the executive director and founder of Medical Students With Disability and Chronic Illness, an organization dedicated to empowering these students through advocacy, education, accessibility, and community. The group now has 19 chapters at medical schools across the country.

Ms. Dhanani said she has received excellent accommodations from Stanford for her own condition (which she prefers not to disclose), but all medical schools are not as responsive to students with various physical needs. Her organization offers support and resources to inform these future physicians about their options and rights.

“Disability justice is also racial justice,” Ms. Dhanani stressed. “It’s also environmental justice. It’s also gender and sexuality-based justice. Those compounded layers of biases lead to worse and worse levels of care. As a patient, it’s terrifying. And as a future physician, it’s tragic to know that this is something so pervasive and yet so under-addressed in medicine.”
 

Soldiering on

Unfortunately, for some physicians with chronic illness, there are no practical accommodations that could save their careers in clinical practice.

Dr. Stenehjem now works part-time as a health consultant, helping those with chronic illnesses navigate their health care systems.

Dr. Bluestein offers a similar coaching service to patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) and other connective tissue and hypermobility disorders. Because of her own EDS, she can no longer practice as an anesthesiologist but instead opened an integrative pain management practice for patients with complex pain conditions..

She believes the idea that doctors are “invincible” needs to change. She recalls the time her former group practice told her in no uncertain terms to “never call in sick.”

The stories she hears from her current clients are similar to her own. She can empathize, knowing firsthand the physical and psychological damage these attitudes can cause.

“When I was at my worst physically, I was also at my worst psychologically,” said Dr. Bluestein. “We tend to think of them as separate, but they go hand in hand. If we can validate people’s experiences rather than disregard them, it has a positive forward cycle, as opposed to the reverse, which is what usually happens.”

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

MILAN – Targeted synthetic and biologic therapies are recommended as disease-modifying agents for key fibrotic manifestations of systemic sclerosis for the first time in the 2023 update of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

Reflecting important advances over the past 8 years, mostly relating to the use of new treatments being made available to patients, the recommendations provide an update on the 2017 recommendations, which relied on evidence published through 2014. Of note, these include the use of immunosuppressive agents, for example, the monoclonal antibody rituximab (Rituxan) for skin and lung fibrosis.

“For the first time, synthetic and targeted treatments are recommended for the treatment of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease, including mycophenolate mofetil [Cellcept], nintedanib [Ofev], rituximab, and tocilizumab [Actemra]. None of these were present in 2017. Mycophenolate mofetil is also recommended for the treatment of skin fibrosis, and this was not present in 2017,” Francesco Del Galdo, MD, rheumatology consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, England, and member of the 2023 recommendations task force, said in an interview. He gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Phosphodiesterase-5 [PDE-5] inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonist [ERA] monotherapy are also recommended for up-front combination use for digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension, and this is new for 2023 and was not present in the 2017 recommendations,” Dr. Del Galdo added.

The new recommendations also note that iloprost is categorized as having grade A evidence for use in Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers, while it has grade B evidence for pulmonary hypertension.

“We are not allowed to share the final table [of recommendations] today because the wording has only very recently been agreed” upon, Dr. Del Galdo said, but he provided a summary representation and reflected on some changes, noting that the task force is aiming to publish the 2023 recommendations by the end of the year.

Consideration and discussion of both established and new evidence highlighted a need for more evidence on the use of immunosuppressive agents in vascular manifestations of systemic sclerosis, as well as for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal ones.

In this update to the 2017 recommendations, high-grade evidence was identified for use of immunosuppressants in skin and lung fibrosis. Grade A evidence has been accepted for the use of rituximab in skin fibrosis; for interstitial lung disease, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib also have grade A evidence, which is a change from the 2017 recommendations.

A total of 20 updated recommendations were agreed on, an increase from 16 in 2017. These were grouped into eight disease domains: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary arterial hypertension, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and renal crisis. Interventions were then graded A-D based on the evidence reviewed.

“This approach allowed us to see clearly that there were patterns of similar recommendations in different organ manifestations, reflecting an understanding of common pathogenic pathways,” said Dr. Del Galdo.

He also noted that the development of the recommendations highlighted certain gaps in research that limit treatment options. “By grouping the recommendations in blocks – for example, skin fibrosis or vascular [manifestations] – we show that immunosuppressive treatments have only been studied in skin and lung, while vascular manifestations have very little evidence for immunosuppression. They might be effective but there’s no evidence yet [hence no recommendation in vascular manifestations].”

“Also, there’s no grade A evidence at all for musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and this should help to define the research agenda going forward,” Dr. Del Galdo said.

The 2023 recommendations task force comprised 28 members from 14 countries, including 18 rheumatologists, 1 EULAR methodologist, 1 health professional representative, 5 rheumatology fellows, 1 librarian, and 2 patient representatives. They used a consensual approach incorporating the views of 101 European Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) centers, sourced via a survey in which questions were advanced to an extensive systematic review if there was 70% or greater agreement.

Eventually, 31 questions on interventions were chosen, and the task force reviewed 12,500 abstracts (up to December 2022) related to interventions and outcomes that were either included in the 2017 recommendations or were totally new.

Dr. Del Galdo said that the three vascular manifestations of scleroderma – Raynaud’s, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and digital ulcers – were treated with the same drugs, all with a similar grade of evidence. “This suggests two things – firstly there’s a vascular disease continuum in the disease, and secondly, we’ve borrowed these drugs from vascular community, but we have not yet tested synthetic and biologic targeted treatments in these manifestations, and we should.

“Treating one manifestation may benefit the other, and this is important time wise because pulmonary hypertension usually comes around 10 years after the first phenomena so by treating digital ulcers and Raynaud’s phenomena, we may prevent pulmonary hypertension, but a study is needed,” added Dr. Del Galdo, who is also president of EUSTAR.

Finally, he pointed out that research remains particularly open for nonpharmacologic treatments for digital ulcers and severe gastrointestinal involvement. “Patients can now ask for studies into this because of the current lack of evidence.”

Moderator Ariane Herrick, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), shared her thoughts on the guidelines. “These recommendations have been long awaited by the scleroderma community because there has been some exciting progress in recent years, and the new recommendations reflect these new developments.”

Commenting on the paucity of evidence in some areas, she added that “there do remain some huge areas of unmet need that are difficult to address, and these are musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and calcinosis, for which there have been no trials at all.”

Dr. Del Galdo declared disclosures relating to AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Herrick disclosed serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen.

MILAN – Targeted synthetic and biologic therapies are recommended as disease-modifying agents for key fibrotic manifestations of systemic sclerosis for the first time in the 2023 update of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

Reflecting important advances over the past 8 years, mostly relating to the use of new treatments being made available to patients, the recommendations provide an update on the 2017 recommendations, which relied on evidence published through 2014. Of note, these include the use of immunosuppressive agents, for example, the monoclonal antibody rituximab (Rituxan) for skin and lung fibrosis.

“For the first time, synthetic and targeted treatments are recommended for the treatment of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease, including mycophenolate mofetil [Cellcept], nintedanib [Ofev], rituximab, and tocilizumab [Actemra]. None of these were present in 2017. Mycophenolate mofetil is also recommended for the treatment of skin fibrosis, and this was not present in 2017,” Francesco Del Galdo, MD, rheumatology consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, England, and member of the 2023 recommendations task force, said in an interview. He gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Phosphodiesterase-5 [PDE-5] inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonist [ERA] monotherapy are also recommended for up-front combination use for digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension, and this is new for 2023 and was not present in the 2017 recommendations,” Dr. Del Galdo added.

The new recommendations also note that iloprost is categorized as having grade A evidence for use in Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers, while it has grade B evidence for pulmonary hypertension.

“We are not allowed to share the final table [of recommendations] today because the wording has only very recently been agreed” upon, Dr. Del Galdo said, but he provided a summary representation and reflected on some changes, noting that the task force is aiming to publish the 2023 recommendations by the end of the year.

Consideration and discussion of both established and new evidence highlighted a need for more evidence on the use of immunosuppressive agents in vascular manifestations of systemic sclerosis, as well as for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal ones.

In this update to the 2017 recommendations, high-grade evidence was identified for use of immunosuppressants in skin and lung fibrosis. Grade A evidence has been accepted for the use of rituximab in skin fibrosis; for interstitial lung disease, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib also have grade A evidence, which is a change from the 2017 recommendations.

A total of 20 updated recommendations were agreed on, an increase from 16 in 2017. These were grouped into eight disease domains: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary arterial hypertension, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and renal crisis. Interventions were then graded A-D based on the evidence reviewed.

“This approach allowed us to see clearly that there were patterns of similar recommendations in different organ manifestations, reflecting an understanding of common pathogenic pathways,” said Dr. Del Galdo.

He also noted that the development of the recommendations highlighted certain gaps in research that limit treatment options. “By grouping the recommendations in blocks – for example, skin fibrosis or vascular [manifestations] – we show that immunosuppressive treatments have only been studied in skin and lung, while vascular manifestations have very little evidence for immunosuppression. They might be effective but there’s no evidence yet [hence no recommendation in vascular manifestations].”

“Also, there’s no grade A evidence at all for musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and this should help to define the research agenda going forward,” Dr. Del Galdo said.

The 2023 recommendations task force comprised 28 members from 14 countries, including 18 rheumatologists, 1 EULAR methodologist, 1 health professional representative, 5 rheumatology fellows, 1 librarian, and 2 patient representatives. They used a consensual approach incorporating the views of 101 European Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) centers, sourced via a survey in which questions were advanced to an extensive systematic review if there was 70% or greater agreement.

Eventually, 31 questions on interventions were chosen, and the task force reviewed 12,500 abstracts (up to December 2022) related to interventions and outcomes that were either included in the 2017 recommendations or were totally new.

Dr. Del Galdo said that the three vascular manifestations of scleroderma – Raynaud’s, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and digital ulcers – were treated with the same drugs, all with a similar grade of evidence. “This suggests two things – firstly there’s a vascular disease continuum in the disease, and secondly, we’ve borrowed these drugs from vascular community, but we have not yet tested synthetic and biologic targeted treatments in these manifestations, and we should.

“Treating one manifestation may benefit the other, and this is important time wise because pulmonary hypertension usually comes around 10 years after the first phenomena so by treating digital ulcers and Raynaud’s phenomena, we may prevent pulmonary hypertension, but a study is needed,” added Dr. Del Galdo, who is also president of EUSTAR.

Finally, he pointed out that research remains particularly open for nonpharmacologic treatments for digital ulcers and severe gastrointestinal involvement. “Patients can now ask for studies into this because of the current lack of evidence.”

Moderator Ariane Herrick, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), shared her thoughts on the guidelines. “These recommendations have been long awaited by the scleroderma community because there has been some exciting progress in recent years, and the new recommendations reflect these new developments.”

Commenting on the paucity of evidence in some areas, she added that “there do remain some huge areas of unmet need that are difficult to address, and these are musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and calcinosis, for which there have been no trials at all.”

Dr. Del Galdo declared disclosures relating to AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Herrick disclosed serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen.

MILAN – Targeted synthetic and biologic therapies are recommended as disease-modifying agents for key fibrotic manifestations of systemic sclerosis for the first time in the 2023 update of European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology recommendations for the treatment of systemic sclerosis.

Reflecting important advances over the past 8 years, mostly relating to the use of new treatments being made available to patients, the recommendations provide an update on the 2017 recommendations, which relied on evidence published through 2014. Of note, these include the use of immunosuppressive agents, for example, the monoclonal antibody rituximab (Rituxan) for skin and lung fibrosis.

“For the first time, synthetic and targeted treatments are recommended for the treatment of systemic sclerosis–interstitial lung disease, including mycophenolate mofetil [Cellcept], nintedanib [Ofev], rituximab, and tocilizumab [Actemra]. None of these were present in 2017. Mycophenolate mofetil is also recommended for the treatment of skin fibrosis, and this was not present in 2017,” Francesco Del Galdo, MD, rheumatology consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, England, and member of the 2023 recommendations task force, said in an interview. He gave an overview of the preliminary recommendations at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Phosphodiesterase-5 [PDE-5] inhibitors and endothelin receptor antagonist [ERA] monotherapy are also recommended for up-front combination use for digital ulcers and pulmonary hypertension, and this is new for 2023 and was not present in the 2017 recommendations,” Dr. Del Galdo added.

The new recommendations also note that iloprost is categorized as having grade A evidence for use in Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers, while it has grade B evidence for pulmonary hypertension.

“We are not allowed to share the final table [of recommendations] today because the wording has only very recently been agreed” upon, Dr. Del Galdo said, but he provided a summary representation and reflected on some changes, noting that the task force is aiming to publish the 2023 recommendations by the end of the year.

Consideration and discussion of both established and new evidence highlighted a need for more evidence on the use of immunosuppressive agents in vascular manifestations of systemic sclerosis, as well as for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal ones.

In this update to the 2017 recommendations, high-grade evidence was identified for use of immunosuppressants in skin and lung fibrosis. Grade A evidence has been accepted for the use of rituximab in skin fibrosis; for interstitial lung disease, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib also have grade A evidence, which is a change from the 2017 recommendations.

A total of 20 updated recommendations were agreed on, an increase from 16 in 2017. These were grouped into eight disease domains: Raynaud’s phenomenon, digital ulcers, pulmonary arterial hypertension, skin fibrosis, interstitial lung disease, musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and renal crisis. Interventions were then graded A-D based on the evidence reviewed.

“This approach allowed us to see clearly that there were patterns of similar recommendations in different organ manifestations, reflecting an understanding of common pathogenic pathways,” said Dr. Del Galdo.

He also noted that the development of the recommendations highlighted certain gaps in research that limit treatment options. “By grouping the recommendations in blocks – for example, skin fibrosis or vascular [manifestations] – we show that immunosuppressive treatments have only been studied in skin and lung, while vascular manifestations have very little evidence for immunosuppression. They might be effective but there’s no evidence yet [hence no recommendation in vascular manifestations].”

“Also, there’s no grade A evidence at all for musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal manifestations, and this should help to define the research agenda going forward,” Dr. Del Galdo said.

The 2023 recommendations task force comprised 28 members from 14 countries, including 18 rheumatologists, 1 EULAR methodologist, 1 health professional representative, 5 rheumatology fellows, 1 librarian, and 2 patient representatives. They used a consensual approach incorporating the views of 101 European Scleroderma Trials and Research group (EUSTAR) centers, sourced via a survey in which questions were advanced to an extensive systematic review if there was 70% or greater agreement.

Eventually, 31 questions on interventions were chosen, and the task force reviewed 12,500 abstracts (up to December 2022) related to interventions and outcomes that were either included in the 2017 recommendations or were totally new.

Dr. Del Galdo said that the three vascular manifestations of scleroderma – Raynaud’s, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and digital ulcers – were treated with the same drugs, all with a similar grade of evidence. “This suggests two things – firstly there’s a vascular disease continuum in the disease, and secondly, we’ve borrowed these drugs from vascular community, but we have not yet tested synthetic and biologic targeted treatments in these manifestations, and we should.

“Treating one manifestation may benefit the other, and this is important time wise because pulmonary hypertension usually comes around 10 years after the first phenomena so by treating digital ulcers and Raynaud’s phenomena, we may prevent pulmonary hypertension, but a study is needed,” added Dr. Del Galdo, who is also president of EUSTAR.

Finally, he pointed out that research remains particularly open for nonpharmacologic treatments for digital ulcers and severe gastrointestinal involvement. “Patients can now ask for studies into this because of the current lack of evidence.”

Moderator Ariane Herrick, PhD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Manchester (England), shared her thoughts on the guidelines. “These recommendations have been long awaited by the scleroderma community because there has been some exciting progress in recent years, and the new recommendations reflect these new developments.”

Commenting on the paucity of evidence in some areas, she added that “there do remain some huge areas of unmet need that are difficult to address, and these are musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and calcinosis, for which there have been no trials at all.”

Dr. Del Galdo declared disclosures relating to AstraZeneca, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Capella, Chemomab, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. Dr. Herrick disclosed serving as a consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim and Janssen.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – About 80% of patients with gout who took the investigational selective uric acid transporter 1 (URAT1) inhibitor AR882 over 3 months reduced their serum uric acid levels to below recommended thresholds (below 5 or 4 mg/dL) for better flare and tophi reduction in a phase 2b study.

The drug was well tolerated, and patients with comorbidities did not require any adjustments in disease management.

At 75 mg, the highest tested dose of AR882, 73% of patients had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 55% had < 4 mg/dL by week 12 of therapy in the intent-to-treat population, whereas in the per-protocol analysis, 82% had serum uric acid levels < 5 mg/dL and 63% < 4 mg/dL.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“These efficacy results are not typically what you see with a once-daily oral medication, so it is really exciting,” Robert Keenan, MD, chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics, San Diego, said in presenting the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Regardless of whether you’re treating subclinical, hidden crystal deposition, versus clinically visible tophi, versus chronic, debilitating gout, we believe that AR882 has the potential to treat the entire gout spectrum with a once-daily monotherapy,” Dr. Keenan asserted.

“Currently, most gout patients around the world do not have a safe, effective, and easy to use alternative to allopurinol or febuxostat, which decrease the production of uric acid,” he said. “AR882 is a URAT1 inhibitor that goes to the root of the problem in over 90% of gout patients, helping the kidneys eliminate uric acid to levels similar to all those without hyperuricemia and gout.”

Abhishek Abhishek, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Nottingham (England), welcomed the study. “It’s a promising study and the reduction in uric acid was substantial. It was a small study and a larger phase 3 study is needed, but it does offer real hope for patients with gout as a third treatment option because we only have allopurinol and febuxostat, so if it is shown efficacious and safe and gets approved, then it’ll help more patients with gout.”

Anne-Kathrin Tausche, MD, a rheumatologist from University Clinic Dresden (Germany), said: “These results are really impressive. We’ve lost lesinurad now because Grünenthal no longer produces it, so this might be a good alternative for patients with severe gout.

“It is favorable with [few] side effects. With allopurinol, we have to titrate it in patients with poor renal function, but it doesn’t seem to be the case with this drug. I really hope they start phase 3 soon,” she added.
 

Phase 2 study, but promising results

Results of the global phase 2b, randomized, double-blind trial compared the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR882 against placebo in patients with gout.

A total of 140 patients with gout, aged 18-75 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min, were recruited across the United States, Australia, and Taiwan. Patients received either once-daily AR882 50 mg (n = 46) for 12 weeks, AR882 50 mg for 2 weeks and then AR882 75 mg (n = 47) for 10 weeks, or matching placebo for 12 weeks (n = 47). Flare prophylaxis with daily colchicine started 10 days prior to the first dose and continued throughout the study.

“Patient characteristics were typical for gout trials except for having a very diverse population,” he said. The trial included 57.9% White, 27.9% Asian, and 15% Black patients. They had a mean age of 55 years, body mass index 31-32 kg/m². There was a range of comorbidities including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, evenly distributed across placebo and AR882 treatment groups.

The efficacy endpoints were the proportion of patients who reached serum uric acid below 6, 5, 4, and 3 mg/dL, at 6 weeks of therapy, while safety was also monitored throughout the study. Reductions in serum uric acid at weeks 2, 4, 6, 12 were exploratory endpoints.

The primary endpoint of the percentage of patients below < 6 mg/dL at 6 weeks in the intent-to-treat population was met by 66% with AR882 at the lower dose (50 mg) and 84% at the higher dose (75 mg).

With the 50-mg dose, serum uric acid was reduced at week 6 to < 5mg/dL by 41%, < 4mg/dL by 12%, and < 3mg/dL by 2%, whereas these percentages were 68%, 52%, and 23%, respectively, with the 75-mg dose.

Exploratory endpoints showed that by week 12, serum uric acid levels dropped from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 5.0 mg/dL with AR882 50 mg and from baseline 8.6 mg/dL to about 3.5 mg/dL with AR882 75 mg. Also at week 12, 55% and 23% reached serum uric acid levels of < 4mg/dL and < 3mg/dL in the intent-to-treat population. No change was observed in the placebo group.

All adverse events were mild to moderate, with the most prevalent being gout flares. There was little difference between doses. There were no clinically significant changes in a total of 778 post-dose measurements of alanine transaminase (ALT) and aspartate transaminase (AST) and 723 post-dose triplicated electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements.

Dr. Keenan is chief medical officer of Arthrosi Therapeutics. Dr. Tausche and Dr. Abhishek have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

MILAN – Results of a phase 3 trial with the investigational drug telitacicept show that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a significantly greater rate of response to SLE response criteria, compared with placebo, while results from a phase 2 trial of the drug in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) also show significant improvements versus placebo.

“With only a limited number of treatments available for patients with lupus, this additional option is certainly an advance and the trial shows a strong efficacy result,” said Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, who was not an investigator for either trial but presented the results for both at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. He is professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, also in Amsterdam.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that targets B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferating-inducing ligand. It is currently undergoing testing in another phase 3 trial (REMESLE-1) at sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The current SLE results relate to the phase 3 study conducted in China, Dr. van Vollenhoven clarified.
 

SLE trial

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 335 patients with SLE who had an average age of 35 years, a body mass index of 22-23 kg/m², and a mean SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score of at least 11.5, indicating high disease activity. Most patients were on glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to weekly subcutaneous injections of telitacicept (160 mg; n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) in combination with standard therapy for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI4) response rate at week 52, while key secondary endpoints included SELENA-SLEDAI, physician global assessment, and levels of immunologic biomarkers including C3, C4, IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells. Safety was also assessed.

At week 52, Dr. van Vollenhoven reported that significantly more patients taking telitacicept achieved a SRI4 response, compared with placebo, at 67.1% versus 32.7%, respectively (P < .001). “The difference was seen at 4-8 weeks and stabilized at around 20 weeks,” he said.

Time to first SLE flare was also reduced in patients on the trial drug at a median of 198 days (95% confidence interval, 169-254 days), compared with placebo at 115 days (95% CI, 92-140 days).

“The secondary outcomes also supported efficacy in these patients,” Dr. van Vollenhoven added, noting that there was a rapid and sustained increase of C3 and C4, the latter being significantly greater than placebo, and reduction of IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells observed following telitacicept treatment.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the telitacicept group showed improvement in SELENA-SLEDAI at week 52, defined as a 4-point or greater reduction, compared with placebo (70.1% vs. 40.5%).

Telitacicept did not increase the risk of infections. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 84.5% with telitacicept versus 91.6% with placebo, with infections (mostly upper respiratory) seen in 65.3% and 60.1%, respectively.
 

Sjögren’s trial

The second trial was a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week study in 42 patients with pSS. Patients (18-65 years) received telitacicept at 160 mg or 240 mg subcutaneously once a week, or placebo, for a total of 24 doses. Patients had a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score of 5 points or more, and were anti-SSA antibody positive.

“Compared with placebo, telitacicept treatment resulted in significant improvement in ESSDAI and MFI-20 [20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory],” Dr. van Vollenhoven reported, adding that, “there was a trend for improvement in salivary gland function and lacrimal gland function relative to placebo, as well as a favorable safety profile.”

ESSDAI change from baseline was 0.5, –3.8, and –2.3 in placebo, 160-mg, and 240-mg telitacicept doses, respectively. MFI-20 change from baseline was 7.0, –4.0, and –5.1, respectively. Dr. Van Vollenhoven said the difference between the doses was not statistically significant.

“If these results are confirmed, it could be the first time a biologic is proven efficacious in this disease,” Dr. Van Vollenhoven said in an interview. “It’s encouraging to know that a new treatment is showing promise in this phase 2 trial. A phase 3 trial is warranted.”
 

Studies yield promising but confusing results

In an interview, Roy Fleischmann, MD, who was not involved with either study, wondered whether the results of the SLE study could be race specific given the magnitude of response to the drug and that the trial was conducted only in China, and whether the positive results of the small Sjögren’s study will pan out in a larger trial.

“The SLE study was very interesting, but the problem is that it’s a Chinese drug in Chinese patients with Chinese doctors, so they are very dramatic results,” he said, questioning whether “these results are race specific,” and that “we will find out when they do the multinational study, but we haven’t seen this type of separation before [in response]. It’s interesting.

“The Sjögren’s was a positive study, but it was confusing because the low dose seemed to be better than the higher dose, and there were very few patients,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas. The left and right eyes gave different results, which was strange, and the salivary gland test was the same [mixed results], so what can we conclude? All in all, it was a small study with a suggestion of efficacy, but we have to do the phase 3 and see what it shows.”

Both trials were sponsored by RemeGen. Dr. van Vollenhoven reported serving as a paid adviser to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen, and UCB. He has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and UCB and educational support from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Fleischmann said he had has no relevant financial relationships.

MILAN – Results of a phase 3 trial with the investigational drug telitacicept show that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a significantly greater rate of response to SLE response criteria, compared with placebo, while results from a phase 2 trial of the drug in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) also show significant improvements versus placebo.

“With only a limited number of treatments available for patients with lupus, this additional option is certainly an advance and the trial shows a strong efficacy result,” said Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, who was not an investigator for either trial but presented the results for both at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. He is professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, also in Amsterdam.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that targets B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferating-inducing ligand. It is currently undergoing testing in another phase 3 trial (REMESLE-1) at sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The current SLE results relate to the phase 3 study conducted in China, Dr. van Vollenhoven clarified.
 

SLE trial

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 335 patients with SLE who had an average age of 35 years, a body mass index of 22-23 kg/m², and a mean SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score of at least 11.5, indicating high disease activity. Most patients were on glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to weekly subcutaneous injections of telitacicept (160 mg; n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) in combination with standard therapy for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI4) response rate at week 52, while key secondary endpoints included SELENA-SLEDAI, physician global assessment, and levels of immunologic biomarkers including C3, C4, IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells. Safety was also assessed.

At week 52, Dr. van Vollenhoven reported that significantly more patients taking telitacicept achieved a SRI4 response, compared with placebo, at 67.1% versus 32.7%, respectively (P < .001). “The difference was seen at 4-8 weeks and stabilized at around 20 weeks,” he said.

Time to first SLE flare was also reduced in patients on the trial drug at a median of 198 days (95% confidence interval, 169-254 days), compared with placebo at 115 days (95% CI, 92-140 days).

“The secondary outcomes also supported efficacy in these patients,” Dr. van Vollenhoven added, noting that there was a rapid and sustained increase of C3 and C4, the latter being significantly greater than placebo, and reduction of IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells observed following telitacicept treatment.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the telitacicept group showed improvement in SELENA-SLEDAI at week 52, defined as a 4-point or greater reduction, compared with placebo (70.1% vs. 40.5%).

Telitacicept did not increase the risk of infections. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 84.5% with telitacicept versus 91.6% with placebo, with infections (mostly upper respiratory) seen in 65.3% and 60.1%, respectively.
 

Sjögren’s trial

The second trial was a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week study in 42 patients with pSS. Patients (18-65 years) received telitacicept at 160 mg or 240 mg subcutaneously once a week, or placebo, for a total of 24 doses. Patients had a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score of 5 points or more, and were anti-SSA antibody positive.

“Compared with placebo, telitacicept treatment resulted in significant improvement in ESSDAI and MFI-20 [20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory],” Dr. van Vollenhoven reported, adding that, “there was a trend for improvement in salivary gland function and lacrimal gland function relative to placebo, as well as a favorable safety profile.”

ESSDAI change from baseline was 0.5, –3.8, and –2.3 in placebo, 160-mg, and 240-mg telitacicept doses, respectively. MFI-20 change from baseline was 7.0, –4.0, and –5.1, respectively. Dr. Van Vollenhoven said the difference between the doses was not statistically significant.

“If these results are confirmed, it could be the first time a biologic is proven efficacious in this disease,” Dr. Van Vollenhoven said in an interview. “It’s encouraging to know that a new treatment is showing promise in this phase 2 trial. A phase 3 trial is warranted.”
 

Studies yield promising but confusing results

In an interview, Roy Fleischmann, MD, who was not involved with either study, wondered whether the results of the SLE study could be race specific given the magnitude of response to the drug and that the trial was conducted only in China, and whether the positive results of the small Sjögren’s study will pan out in a larger trial.

“The SLE study was very interesting, but the problem is that it’s a Chinese drug in Chinese patients with Chinese doctors, so they are very dramatic results,” he said, questioning whether “these results are race specific,” and that “we will find out when they do the multinational study, but we haven’t seen this type of separation before [in response]. It’s interesting.

“The Sjögren’s was a positive study, but it was confusing because the low dose seemed to be better than the higher dose, and there were very few patients,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas. The left and right eyes gave different results, which was strange, and the salivary gland test was the same [mixed results], so what can we conclude? All in all, it was a small study with a suggestion of efficacy, but we have to do the phase 3 and see what it shows.”

Both trials were sponsored by RemeGen. Dr. van Vollenhoven reported serving as a paid adviser to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen, and UCB. He has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and UCB and educational support from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Fleischmann said he had has no relevant financial relationships.

MILAN – Results of a phase 3 trial with the investigational drug telitacicept show that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have a significantly greater rate of response to SLE response criteria, compared with placebo, while results from a phase 2 trial of the drug in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) also show significant improvements versus placebo.

“With only a limited number of treatments available for patients with lupus, this additional option is certainly an advance and the trial shows a strong efficacy result,” said Ronald van Vollenhoven, MD, PhD, who was not an investigator for either trial but presented the results for both at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. He is professor of clinical immunology and rheumatology at Amsterdam University Medical Center and VU University Medical Center, also in Amsterdam.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Telitacicept is a recombinant fusion protein that targets B-lymphocyte stimulator and a proliferating-inducing ligand. It is currently undergoing testing in another phase 3 trial (REMESLE-1) at sites in the United States, Europe, and Asia. The current SLE results relate to the phase 3 study conducted in China, Dr. van Vollenhoven clarified.
 

SLE trial

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included 335 patients with SLE who had an average age of 35 years, a body mass index of 22-23 kg/m², and a mean SELENA-SLEDAI (Safety of Estrogens in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment–Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) score of at least 11.5, indicating high disease activity. Most patients were on glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to weekly subcutaneous injections of telitacicept (160 mg; n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) in combination with standard therapy for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI4) response rate at week 52, while key secondary endpoints included SELENA-SLEDAI, physician global assessment, and levels of immunologic biomarkers including C3, C4, IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells. Safety was also assessed.

At week 52, Dr. van Vollenhoven reported that significantly more patients taking telitacicept achieved a SRI4 response, compared with placebo, at 67.1% versus 32.7%, respectively (P < .001). “The difference was seen at 4-8 weeks and stabilized at around 20 weeks,” he said.

Time to first SLE flare was also reduced in patients on the trial drug at a median of 198 days (95% confidence interval, 169-254 days), compared with placebo at 115 days (95% CI, 92-140 days).

“The secondary outcomes also supported efficacy in these patients,” Dr. van Vollenhoven added, noting that there was a rapid and sustained increase of C3 and C4, the latter being significantly greater than placebo, and reduction of IgM, IgG, IgA, and CD19+ B cells observed following telitacicept treatment.

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the telitacicept group showed improvement in SELENA-SLEDAI at week 52, defined as a 4-point or greater reduction, compared with placebo (70.1% vs. 40.5%).

Telitacicept did not increase the risk of infections. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 84.5% with telitacicept versus 91.6% with placebo, with infections (mostly upper respiratory) seen in 65.3% and 60.1%, respectively.
 

Sjögren’s trial

The second trial was a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, 24-week study in 42 patients with pSS. Patients (18-65 years) received telitacicept at 160 mg or 240 mg subcutaneously once a week, or placebo, for a total of 24 doses. Patients had a EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) score of 5 points or more, and were anti-SSA antibody positive.

“Compared with placebo, telitacicept treatment resulted in significant improvement in ESSDAI and MFI-20 [20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory],” Dr. van Vollenhoven reported, adding that, “there was a trend for improvement in salivary gland function and lacrimal gland function relative to placebo, as well as a favorable safety profile.”

ESSDAI change from baseline was 0.5, –3.8, and –2.3 in placebo, 160-mg, and 240-mg telitacicept doses, respectively. MFI-20 change from baseline was 7.0, –4.0, and –5.1, respectively. Dr. Van Vollenhoven said the difference between the doses was not statistically significant.

“If these results are confirmed, it could be the first time a biologic is proven efficacious in this disease,” Dr. Van Vollenhoven said in an interview. “It’s encouraging to know that a new treatment is showing promise in this phase 2 trial. A phase 3 trial is warranted.”
 

Studies yield promising but confusing results

In an interview, Roy Fleischmann, MD, who was not involved with either study, wondered whether the results of the SLE study could be race specific given the magnitude of response to the drug and that the trial was conducted only in China, and whether the positive results of the small Sjögren’s study will pan out in a larger trial.

“The SLE study was very interesting, but the problem is that it’s a Chinese drug in Chinese patients with Chinese doctors, so they are very dramatic results,” he said, questioning whether “these results are race specific,” and that “we will find out when they do the multinational study, but we haven’t seen this type of separation before [in response]. It’s interesting.

“The Sjögren’s was a positive study, but it was confusing because the low dose seemed to be better than the higher dose, and there were very few patients,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas. The left and right eyes gave different results, which was strange, and the salivary gland test was the same [mixed results], so what can we conclude? All in all, it was a small study with a suggestion of efficacy, but we have to do the phase 3 and see what it shows.”

Both trials were sponsored by RemeGen. Dr. van Vollenhoven reported serving as a paid adviser to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pfizer, RemeGen, and UCB. He has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and UCB and educational support from AstraZeneca, Galapagos, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Fleischmann said he had has no relevant financial relationships.

A team of researchers has identified genomic variants that cause disabling pansclerotic morphea (DPM), a rare, severe inflammatory skin disorder, and report that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib may be a useful therapy, especially in patients who have not responded to other interventions.

DPM was first reported in 1923, and while a genetic cause has been suspected, it had not been identified until now. The disease is the most severe form of deep morphea, which affects individuals with juvenile localized scleroderma. Patients, generally children under age 14, experience rapid sclerosis of all layers of the skin, fascia, muscle, and bone. DPM is also deadly: Most patients do not live more than 10 years after diagnosis, as they contract squamous cell carcinoma, restrictive pulmonary disease, sepsis, and gangrene.

In the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers discovered that people with DPM have an overactive version of the protein STAT4, which regulates inflammation and wound healing. The scientists studied four patients from three unrelated families with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance of DPM.

“Researchers previously thought that this disorder was caused by the immune system attacking the skin,” Sarah Blackstone, a predoctoral fellow in the inflammatory disease section at the National Human Genome Research Institute and co–first author of the study, said in a statement from the National Institutes of Health describing the results. “However, we found that this is an oversimplification, and that both skin and the immune system play an active role in disabling pansclerotic morphea,” added Ms. Blackstone, also a medical student at the University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls.

The overactive STAT4 protein creates a positive feedback loop of inflammation and impaired wound-healing. By targeting JAK, the researchers were able to stop the feedback and patients’ wounds dramatically improved. After 18 months of treatment with oral ruxolitinib, one patient had discontinued all other medications, and had complete resolution of a chest rash, substantial clearing on the arms and legs, and global clinical improvement.

The authors said that oral systemic JAK inhibitor therapy is preferred over topical therapy. Their research also suggested that anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibodies – such as tocilizumab, approved for indications that include rheumatoid arthritis and systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease, “may be an alternative therapy or may be useful in combination with JAK inhibitors in patients with DPM,” the authors wrote.

Most current DPM therapies – including methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and ultraviolet A light therapy – have been ineffective, and some have severe side effects.

“The findings of this study open doors for JAK inhibitors to be a potential treatment for other inflammatory skin disorders or disorders related to tissue scarring, whether it is scarring of the lungs, liver or bone marrow,” Dan Kastner, MD, PhD, an NIH distinguished investigator, head of the NHGRI’s inflammatory disease section, and a senior author of the paper, said in the NIH statement.

“We hope to continue studying other molecules in this pathway and how they are altered in patients with disabling pansclerotic morphea and related conditions to find clues to understanding a broader array of more common diseases,” Lori Broderick, MD, PhD, a senior author of the paper and an associate professor at University of California, San Diego, said in the statement.

The study was led by researchers at NHGRI in collaboration with researchers from UCSD and the University of Pittsburgh. Researchers from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases also participated.

The study was supported by grants from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Foundation; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; the University of California, San Diego, department of pediatrics; and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Additional support and grants were given by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, various institutes at the NIH, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the Hydrocephalus Association, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the Biowulf High-Performance Computing Cluster of the Center for Information Technology, the Undiagnosed Diseases Program of the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the NIH, and the NIH Clinical Center.

A team of researchers has identified genomic variants that cause disabling pansclerotic morphea (DPM), a rare, severe inflammatory skin disorder, and report that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib may be a useful therapy, especially in patients who have not responded to other interventions.

DPM was first reported in 1923, and while a genetic cause has been suspected, it had not been identified until now. The disease is the most severe form of deep morphea, which affects individuals with juvenile localized scleroderma. Patients, generally children under age 14, experience rapid sclerosis of all layers of the skin, fascia, muscle, and bone. DPM is also deadly: Most patients do not live more than 10 years after diagnosis, as they contract squamous cell carcinoma, restrictive pulmonary disease, sepsis, and gangrene.

In the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers discovered that people with DPM have an overactive version of the protein STAT4, which regulates inflammation and wound healing. The scientists studied four patients from three unrelated families with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance of DPM.

“Researchers previously thought that this disorder was caused by the immune system attacking the skin,” Sarah Blackstone, a predoctoral fellow in the inflammatory disease section at the National Human Genome Research Institute and co–first author of the study, said in a statement from the National Institutes of Health describing the results. “However, we found that this is an oversimplification, and that both skin and the immune system play an active role in disabling pansclerotic morphea,” added Ms. Blackstone, also a medical student at the University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls.

The overactive STAT4 protein creates a positive feedback loop of inflammation and impaired wound-healing. By targeting JAK, the researchers were able to stop the feedback and patients’ wounds dramatically improved. After 18 months of treatment with oral ruxolitinib, one patient had discontinued all other medications, and had complete resolution of a chest rash, substantial clearing on the arms and legs, and global clinical improvement.

The authors said that oral systemic JAK inhibitor therapy is preferred over topical therapy. Their research also suggested that anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibodies – such as tocilizumab, approved for indications that include rheumatoid arthritis and systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease, “may be an alternative therapy or may be useful in combination with JAK inhibitors in patients with DPM,” the authors wrote.

Most current DPM therapies – including methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and ultraviolet A light therapy – have been ineffective, and some have severe side effects.

“The findings of this study open doors for JAK inhibitors to be a potential treatment for other inflammatory skin disorders or disorders related to tissue scarring, whether it is scarring of the lungs, liver or bone marrow,” Dan Kastner, MD, PhD, an NIH distinguished investigator, head of the NHGRI’s inflammatory disease section, and a senior author of the paper, said in the NIH statement.

“We hope to continue studying other molecules in this pathway and how they are altered in patients with disabling pansclerotic morphea and related conditions to find clues to understanding a broader array of more common diseases,” Lori Broderick, MD, PhD, a senior author of the paper and an associate professor at University of California, San Diego, said in the statement.

The study was led by researchers at NHGRI in collaboration with researchers from UCSD and the University of Pittsburgh. Researchers from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases also participated.

The study was supported by grants from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Foundation; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; the University of California, San Diego, department of pediatrics; and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Additional support and grants were given by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, various institutes at the NIH, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the Hydrocephalus Association, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the Biowulf High-Performance Computing Cluster of the Center for Information Technology, the Undiagnosed Diseases Program of the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the NIH, and the NIH Clinical Center.

A team of researchers has identified genomic variants that cause disabling pansclerotic morphea (DPM), a rare, severe inflammatory skin disorder, and report that the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib may be a useful therapy, especially in patients who have not responded to other interventions.

DPM was first reported in 1923, and while a genetic cause has been suspected, it had not been identified until now. The disease is the most severe form of deep morphea, which affects individuals with juvenile localized scleroderma. Patients, generally children under age 14, experience rapid sclerosis of all layers of the skin, fascia, muscle, and bone. DPM is also deadly: Most patients do not live more than 10 years after diagnosis, as they contract squamous cell carcinoma, restrictive pulmonary disease, sepsis, and gangrene.

In the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers discovered that people with DPM have an overactive version of the protein STAT4, which regulates inflammation and wound healing. The scientists studied four patients from three unrelated families with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance of DPM.

“Researchers previously thought that this disorder was caused by the immune system attacking the skin,” Sarah Blackstone, a predoctoral fellow in the inflammatory disease section at the National Human Genome Research Institute and co–first author of the study, said in a statement from the National Institutes of Health describing the results. “However, we found that this is an oversimplification, and that both skin and the immune system play an active role in disabling pansclerotic morphea,” added Ms. Blackstone, also a medical student at the University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls.

The overactive STAT4 protein creates a positive feedback loop of inflammation and impaired wound-healing. By targeting JAK, the researchers were able to stop the feedback and patients’ wounds dramatically improved. After 18 months of treatment with oral ruxolitinib, one patient had discontinued all other medications, and had complete resolution of a chest rash, substantial clearing on the arms and legs, and global clinical improvement.

The authors said that oral systemic JAK inhibitor therapy is preferred over topical therapy. Their research also suggested that anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibodies – such as tocilizumab, approved for indications that include rheumatoid arthritis and systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease, “may be an alternative therapy or may be useful in combination with JAK inhibitors in patients with DPM,” the authors wrote.

Most current DPM therapies – including methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, and ultraviolet A light therapy – have been ineffective, and some have severe side effects.

“The findings of this study open doors for JAK inhibitors to be a potential treatment for other inflammatory skin disorders or disorders related to tissue scarring, whether it is scarring of the lungs, liver or bone marrow,” Dan Kastner, MD, PhD, an NIH distinguished investigator, head of the NHGRI’s inflammatory disease section, and a senior author of the paper, said in the NIH statement.

“We hope to continue studying other molecules in this pathway and how they are altered in patients with disabling pansclerotic morphea and related conditions to find clues to understanding a broader array of more common diseases,” Lori Broderick, MD, PhD, a senior author of the paper and an associate professor at University of California, San Diego, said in the statement.

The study was led by researchers at NHGRI in collaboration with researchers from UCSD and the University of Pittsburgh. Researchers from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases also participated.

The study was supported by grants from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Foundation; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research; the University of California, San Diego, department of pediatrics; and the Novo Nordisk Foundation. Additional support and grants were given by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, various institutes at the NIH, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the Hydrocephalus Association, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the Biowulf High-Performance Computing Cluster of the Center for Information Technology, the Undiagnosed Diseases Program of the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the NIH, and the NIH Clinical Center.

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

Around 5% of patients treated with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis experience musculoskeletal (MSK) symptoms, according to the results of a descriptive study.

The main MSK symptom seen in the observational cohort was enthesitis, but some patients also experienced arthritis and tenosynovitis a median of 17 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment. Together these symptoms represent a new MSK syndrome, say researchers from the United Kingdom.

“The pattern of MSK symptoms and signs is characteristic of psoriatic arthritis/peripheral spondyloarthritis,” Bruce Kirkham, MD, and collaborators report in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“We started a few years ago and have been following the patients for quite a long time,” Dr. Kirkham, a consultant rheumatologist at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, told this news organization.

Characterizing the MSK symptoms

Of 470 patients with atopic dermatitis who started treatment with dupilumab at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust between October 2018 and February 2021, 36 (7.65%) developed rheumatic symptoms and were referred to the rheumatology department. These individuals had their family history assessed and thorough MSK evaluations, which included antibody and inflammatory markers, ultrasound of the peripheral small joints, and MRI of the large joints and spine.

A total of 26 (5.5%) patients – 14 of whom were male – had inflammatory enthesitis, arthritis, and/or tenosynovitis. Of the others, seven had osteoarthritis and three had degenerative spine disease.

Enthesitis was the most common finding in those with rheumatic symptoms, occurring on its own in 11 patients, with arthritis in three patients, and tenosynovitis in two patients.  

These symptoms appeared 2-48 weeks after starting dupilumab treatment and were categorized as mild in 16 (61%) cases, moderate in six cases, and severe in four cases.

No specific predictors of the MSK symptoms seen were noted. Patient age, sex, duration of their atopic dermatitis, or how their skin condition had been previously treated did not help identify those who might develop rheumatic problems.
 

Conservative management approach

All patients had “outstanding” responses to treatment, Dr. Kirkham noted: The mean Eczema Area and Severity Index score before dupilumab treatment was 21, falling to 4.2 with treatment, indicating a mean 80% improvement.

Co-author Joseph Nathan, MBChB, of London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, who collaborated on the research while working within Dr. Kirkham’s group, said separately: “The concern that patients have is that when they start a medication and develop a side effect is that the medication is going to be stopped.”

Clinicians treating the patients took a conservative approach, prescribing NSAIDs such as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or altering the frequency with which dupilumab was given.

With this approach, MSK symptoms resolved in 15 patients who remained on treatment and in seven who had to stop dupilumab. There were four patients, however, who had unresolved symptoms even once dupilumab treatment had been stopped.
 

Altering the local cytokine balance

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. This results in blocking the function of not only IL-4 but also IL-13.

Dr. Kirkham and colleagues think this might not only alter the balance of cytokines in the skin but also in the joints and entheses with IL-17, IL-23, or even tumor necrosis factor playing a possible role. Another thought is that many circulating T-cells in the skin move to the joints and entheses to trigger symptoms.

IL-13 inhibition does seem to be important, as another British research team, from the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England), has found.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology, Sizheng Steven Zhao, MBChB, PhD, and colleagues reported that among people who carried a genetic variant predisposing them to having low IL-13 function, there was a higher risk for inflammatory diseases such as psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthropathy-related diseases.

Sara Freeman/Frontline Medical News

Dermatology perspective

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2017, dupilumab has since been hailed as a “breakthrough” in atopic dermatitis treatment. Given as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, it provides a much-needed option for people who have moderate-to-severe disease and have tried other available treatments, including corticosteroids.

Dupilumab has since also been approved for asthma, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyposis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and prurigo nodularis and is used off-label for other skin conditions such as contact dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, and alopecia areata.

“Dupilumab, like a lot of medications for atopic dermatitis, is a relatively new drug, and we are still learning about its safety,” Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

“Inflammatory arthritis has been reported in patients treated with dupilumab, and this new study provides some useful estimates,” added Dr. Gelfand, who is a professor of dermatology and epidemiology and directs the Psoriasis and Phototherapy Treatment Center, Philadelphia.

“There was no control group,” Dr. Gelfand said, so “a causal relationship cannot be well established based on these data alone. The mechanism is not known but may result from a shifting of the immune system.”

Dr. Zhao observed: “We don’t know what the natural history of these adverse events is. We don’t know if stopping the drug early will prevent long-term adverse events. So, we don’t know if people will ultimately develop permanent psoriatic arthritis if we don’t intervene quick enough when we observe an adverse event.”

Being aware of the possibility of rheumatic side effects occurring with dupilumab and similar agents is key, Dr. Gelfand and Dr. Kirkham both said independently.

“I have personally seen this entity in my practice,” Dr. Gelfand said. “It is important to clinicians prescribing dupilumab to alert patients about this potential side effect and ask about joint symptoms in follow-up.”

Dr. Kirkham said: “Prescribers need to be aware of it, because up until now it’s been just very vaguely discussed as sort of aches and pains, arthralgias, and it’s a much more specific of a kind of syndrome of enthesitis, arthritis, tenosynovitis – a little like psoriatic arthritis.”

Not everyone has come across these side effects, however, as Steven Daveluy, MD, associate professor and dermatology program director at Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

“This article and the other case series both noted the musculoskeletal symptoms occurred in about 5% of patients, which surprised me since I haven’t seen it in my practice and have enough patients being treated with dupilumab that I would expect to see a case at that rate,” Dr. Daveluy said.

“The majority of cases are mild and respond to treatment with anti-inflammatories like naproxen, which is available over the counter. It’s likely that patients with a mild case could simply treat their pain with naproxen that’s already in their medicine cabinet until it resolves, never bringing it to the doctor’s attention,” he suggested.

“Dupilumab is still a safe and effective medication that can change the lives of patients suffering from atopic dermatitis,” he said.

“Awareness of this potential side effect can help dermatologists recognize it early and work together with patients to determine the best course of action.”

All research mentioned in this article was independently supported. Dr. Kirkham, Mr. Nathan, Dr. Zhao, and Dr. Daveluy report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gelfand has served as a consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and receives research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. He is a co-patent holder of resiquimod for treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

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

MILAN – Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz) injection proved to have similar efficacy for limiting spinal radiographic progression over a 2-year period in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) in the SURPASS study, a phase 3b, randomized controlled trial.

The study, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, represents the first head-to-head trial comparing the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in axSpA. Notably, secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz target different pathways as an interleukin-17A inhibitor and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, respectively.

Both TNF and IL-17A have been implicated in the pathogenesis of axSpA. Anti-TNF agents and the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab have demonstrated effectiveness in improving symptoms, signs, and physical function in patients with axSpA and are approved therapies for the disease. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of bDMARDs in slowing radiographic progression, which is a key therapeutic goal in axSpA to prevent irreversible structural damage.

The SURPASS trial, funded by Novartis, enrolled 859 biologic-naive adult patients with moderate to severe r-axSpA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or adalimumab-adaz 40 mg (n = 286). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at the 2-year mark (week 104). Radiographic progression was defined as a change from baseline in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72) of 0.5 or less. The radiographic assessments were conducted by three independent evaluators who were blinded to treatment and the chronology of images.

Baseline characteristics indicated that the study population (78.5% male; mean age, 42.1 years) had a high risk of radiographic progression. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at week 104 was 66.1% in the secukinumab 150-mg arm, 66.9% in the secukinumab 300-mg arm, and 65.6% in the adalimumab-adaz arm. The mean change from baseline in mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively.

Notably, more than half of the patients (56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3%, respectively) with at least one syndesmophyte at baseline did not develop new syndesmophytes over the 2-year period. The observed reductions in sacroiliac joint and spinal edema were comparable across all treatment groups. The safety profile of secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz was consistent with their well-established profiles.

No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of the primary and secondary endpoints. Study presenter and lead author Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, PhD, medical director of the Rheumatism Centre and professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), stated: “Anti-TNF therapy has been considered the gold-standard treatment for axial spondyloarthritis in terms of slowing or halting radiographic progression. Our aim was to investigate whether other modes of action, such as IL-17 inhibition, achieve the same results. The primary hypothesis was that IL-17 inhibition could be even more effective than TNF blockade. However, our data indicate that secukinumab is at least as good as TNF blockers.

“Several risk factors, including high C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, male gender, high disease activity, and baseline radiographic damage (e.g., presence of syndesmophytes), are associated with structural progression,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “We performed subgroup analyses and found no differences. This is a positive outcome as it suggests that there is no need to select patients based on either secukinumab or anti-TNF agents.”

When making treatment decisions, other factors must be taken into consideration. “Our study specifically examined radiographic progression. The clinical outcomes, indications, and contraindications for anti-TNF agents and secukinumab differ,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “For instance, secukinumab may be preferred for patients with psoriasis, while adalimumab is more suitable for those with inflammatory bowel disease. Although these bDMARDs are not interchangeable, they have the same positive effect on radiographic progression.”
 

Not a definitive answer about structural progression

An open question remains. Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egas Moniz and researcher at NOVA Medical School, both in Lisbon, commented: “The study was designed to maximize the chances of detecting a difference, if any, in spinal radiographic progression between secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg and adalimumab. The included patients had a high risk of progression at baseline; in addition to back pain, they either had elevated CRP or at least one syndesmophyte on spine radiographs. Consequently, baseline structural damage was high [mean mSASSS, 17].”

“After 2 years, no difference was observed in the percentage of patients with no progression across the study arms. This finding does not definitively answer whether bDMARDs can modify structural progression or if secukinumab and adalimumab are equally effective in this regard,” explained Dr. Sepriano, who was not involved in the study. “However, there is good news for patients. Both secukinumab and adalimumab are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that effectively alleviate axial inflammation caused by the disease. This was demonstrated by the reduction in inflammatory scores on MRI in the SURPASS study. It aligns with robust evidence that both IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors are effective in improving symptoms in individuals with axSpA.

“Researchers continue to make significant efforts to understand how axial inflammation contributes to pathological new bone formation in axSpA,” Dr. Sepriano continued. “Understanding these mechanisms can guide future research aimed at interfering with disease progression. Furthermore, the use of new methods to quantify structural progression in axSpA, such as low-dose CT, which has shown greater sensitivity to change than traditional methods, can pave the way for new studies with fewer patients and shorter follow-up periods, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects.”

Dr. Baraliakos has received speaking and consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sepriano has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.

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

MILAN – Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz) injection proved to have similar efficacy for limiting spinal radiographic progression over a 2-year period in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) in the SURPASS study, a phase 3b, randomized controlled trial.

The study, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, represents the first head-to-head trial comparing the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in axSpA. Notably, secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz target different pathways as an interleukin-17A inhibitor and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, respectively.

Both TNF and IL-17A have been implicated in the pathogenesis of axSpA. Anti-TNF agents and the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab have demonstrated effectiveness in improving symptoms, signs, and physical function in patients with axSpA and are approved therapies for the disease. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of bDMARDs in slowing radiographic progression, which is a key therapeutic goal in axSpA to prevent irreversible structural damage.

The SURPASS trial, funded by Novartis, enrolled 859 biologic-naive adult patients with moderate to severe r-axSpA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or adalimumab-adaz 40 mg (n = 286). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at the 2-year mark (week 104). Radiographic progression was defined as a change from baseline in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72) of 0.5 or less. The radiographic assessments were conducted by three independent evaluators who were blinded to treatment and the chronology of images.

Baseline characteristics indicated that the study population (78.5% male; mean age, 42.1 years) had a high risk of radiographic progression. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at week 104 was 66.1% in the secukinumab 150-mg arm, 66.9% in the secukinumab 300-mg arm, and 65.6% in the adalimumab-adaz arm. The mean change from baseline in mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively.

Notably, more than half of the patients (56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3%, respectively) with at least one syndesmophyte at baseline did not develop new syndesmophytes over the 2-year period. The observed reductions in sacroiliac joint and spinal edema were comparable across all treatment groups. The safety profile of secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz was consistent with their well-established profiles.

No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of the primary and secondary endpoints. Study presenter and lead author Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, PhD, medical director of the Rheumatism Centre and professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), stated: “Anti-TNF therapy has been considered the gold-standard treatment for axial spondyloarthritis in terms of slowing or halting radiographic progression. Our aim was to investigate whether other modes of action, such as IL-17 inhibition, achieve the same results. The primary hypothesis was that IL-17 inhibition could be even more effective than TNF blockade. However, our data indicate that secukinumab is at least as good as TNF blockers.

“Several risk factors, including high C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, male gender, high disease activity, and baseline radiographic damage (e.g., presence of syndesmophytes), are associated with structural progression,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “We performed subgroup analyses and found no differences. This is a positive outcome as it suggests that there is no need to select patients based on either secukinumab or anti-TNF agents.”

When making treatment decisions, other factors must be taken into consideration. “Our study specifically examined radiographic progression. The clinical outcomes, indications, and contraindications for anti-TNF agents and secukinumab differ,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “For instance, secukinumab may be preferred for patients with psoriasis, while adalimumab is more suitable for those with inflammatory bowel disease. Although these bDMARDs are not interchangeable, they have the same positive effect on radiographic progression.”
 

Not a definitive answer about structural progression

An open question remains. Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egas Moniz and researcher at NOVA Medical School, both in Lisbon, commented: “The study was designed to maximize the chances of detecting a difference, if any, in spinal radiographic progression between secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg and adalimumab. The included patients had a high risk of progression at baseline; in addition to back pain, they either had elevated CRP or at least one syndesmophyte on spine radiographs. Consequently, baseline structural damage was high [mean mSASSS, 17].”

“After 2 years, no difference was observed in the percentage of patients with no progression across the study arms. This finding does not definitively answer whether bDMARDs can modify structural progression or if secukinumab and adalimumab are equally effective in this regard,” explained Dr. Sepriano, who was not involved in the study. “However, there is good news for patients. Both secukinumab and adalimumab are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that effectively alleviate axial inflammation caused by the disease. This was demonstrated by the reduction in inflammatory scores on MRI in the SURPASS study. It aligns with robust evidence that both IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors are effective in improving symptoms in individuals with axSpA.

“Researchers continue to make significant efforts to understand how axial inflammation contributes to pathological new bone formation in axSpA,” Dr. Sepriano continued. “Understanding these mechanisms can guide future research aimed at interfering with disease progression. Furthermore, the use of new methods to quantify structural progression in axSpA, such as low-dose CT, which has shown greater sensitivity to change than traditional methods, can pave the way for new studies with fewer patients and shorter follow-up periods, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects.”

Dr. Baraliakos has received speaking and consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sepriano has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.

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

MILAN – Secukinumab (Cosentyx) and biosimilar adalimumab-adaz (Hyrimoz) injection proved to have similar efficacy for limiting spinal radiographic progression over a 2-year period in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) in the SURPASS study, a phase 3b, randomized controlled trial.

The study, presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, represents the first head-to-head trial comparing the effects of two biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in axSpA. Notably, secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz target different pathways as an interleukin-17A inhibitor and a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, respectively.

Both TNF and IL-17A have been implicated in the pathogenesis of axSpA. Anti-TNF agents and the IL-17A inhibitor secukinumab have demonstrated effectiveness in improving symptoms, signs, and physical function in patients with axSpA and are approved therapies for the disease. However, limited data exist regarding the effect of bDMARDs in slowing radiographic progression, which is a key therapeutic goal in axSpA to prevent irreversible structural damage.

The SURPASS trial, funded by Novartis, enrolled 859 biologic-naive adult patients with moderate to severe r-axSpA. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive secukinumab 150 mg (n = 287), secukinumab 300 mg (n = 286), or adalimumab-adaz 40 mg (n = 286). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at the 2-year mark (week 104). Radiographic progression was defined as a change from baseline in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS; range, 0-72) of 0.5 or less. The radiographic assessments were conducted by three independent evaluators who were blinded to treatment and the chronology of images.

Baseline characteristics indicated that the study population (78.5% male; mean age, 42.1 years) had a high risk of radiographic progression. The proportion of patients with no radiographic progression at week 104 was 66.1% in the secukinumab 150-mg arm, 66.9% in the secukinumab 300-mg arm, and 65.6% in the adalimumab-adaz arm. The mean change from baseline in mSASSS was 0.54, 0.55, and 0.72, respectively.

Notably, more than half of the patients (56.9%, 53.8%, and 53.3%, respectively) with at least one syndesmophyte at baseline did not develop new syndesmophytes over the 2-year period. The observed reductions in sacroiliac joint and spinal edema were comparable across all treatment groups. The safety profile of secukinumab and adalimumab-adaz was consistent with their well-established profiles.

No significant differences were observed between the treatment groups in terms of the primary and secondary endpoints. Study presenter and lead author Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, PhD, medical director of the Rheumatism Centre and professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), stated: “Anti-TNF therapy has been considered the gold-standard treatment for axial spondyloarthritis in terms of slowing or halting radiographic progression. Our aim was to investigate whether other modes of action, such as IL-17 inhibition, achieve the same results. The primary hypothesis was that IL-17 inhibition could be even more effective than TNF blockade. However, our data indicate that secukinumab is at least as good as TNF blockers.

“Several risk factors, including high C-reactive protein [CRP] levels, male gender, high disease activity, and baseline radiographic damage (e.g., presence of syndesmophytes), are associated with structural progression,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “We performed subgroup analyses and found no differences. This is a positive outcome as it suggests that there is no need to select patients based on either secukinumab or anti-TNF agents.”

When making treatment decisions, other factors must be taken into consideration. “Our study specifically examined radiographic progression. The clinical outcomes, indications, and contraindications for anti-TNF agents and secukinumab differ,” Dr. Baraliakos explained. “For instance, secukinumab may be preferred for patients with psoriasis, while adalimumab is more suitable for those with inflammatory bowel disease. Although these bDMARDs are not interchangeable, they have the same positive effect on radiographic progression.”
 

Not a definitive answer about structural progression

An open question remains. Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egas Moniz and researcher at NOVA Medical School, both in Lisbon, commented: “The study was designed to maximize the chances of detecting a difference, if any, in spinal radiographic progression between secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg and adalimumab. The included patients had a high risk of progression at baseline; in addition to back pain, they either had elevated CRP or at least one syndesmophyte on spine radiographs. Consequently, baseline structural damage was high [mean mSASSS, 17].”

“After 2 years, no difference was observed in the percentage of patients with no progression across the study arms. This finding does not definitively answer whether bDMARDs can modify structural progression or if secukinumab and adalimumab are equally effective in this regard,” explained Dr. Sepriano, who was not involved in the study. “However, there is good news for patients. Both secukinumab and adalimumab are potent anti-inflammatory drugs that effectively alleviate axial inflammation caused by the disease. This was demonstrated by the reduction in inflammatory scores on MRI in the SURPASS study. It aligns with robust evidence that both IL-17 inhibitors and TNF inhibitors are effective in improving symptoms in individuals with axSpA.

“Researchers continue to make significant efforts to understand how axial inflammation contributes to pathological new bone formation in axSpA,” Dr. Sepriano continued. “Understanding these mechanisms can guide future research aimed at interfering with disease progression. Furthermore, the use of new methods to quantify structural progression in axSpA, such as low-dose CT, which has shown greater sensitivity to change than traditional methods, can pave the way for new studies with fewer patients and shorter follow-up periods, thereby increasing the likelihood of detecting treatment effects.”

Dr. Baraliakos has received speaking and consulting fees and grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sepriano has received speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. The trial was sponsored by Novartis.

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

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

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

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

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

MILAN – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant) demonstrated significantly better efficacy than cyclophosphamide infusions in the treatment of lupus nephritis in a small, independently funded, phase 3, double-blind clinical trial, Manal Hassanien, MD, reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Baricitinib, licensed by Eli Lilly, has been recognized as a potential therapeutic option in systemic lupus, and is approved in the United States to treat RA, alopecia areata, and COVID-19 in certain hospitalized adults. It is also approved to treat atopic dermatitis in Europe. However, it previously yielded disappointing results in phase 3 clinical trials SLE-BRAVE-I and SLE-BRAVE-II for systemic lupus erythematosus. The trial results presented at EULAR suggest that baricitinib could be beneficial in the treatment of lupus nephritis, further establishing the role of JAK inhibitors in autoimmune disease therapy.

“Lupus nephritis typically develops within 5 years of initial lupus symptoms,” said Dr. Hassanien, of the rheumatology research and advanced therapeutics department at Assiut (Egypt) University. “Research has shown that up to 60% of lupus patients will eventually develop lupus nephritis. The management of proliferative lupus nephritis usually involves an initial phase focused on preventing the development of irreversible damage, followed by a maintenance phase to control lupus activity. Despite significant progress, lupus nephritis still carries an increased risk of end-stage renal disease and mortality.”

The study’s primary endpoint of 24-hour proteinuria response rate (≥ 50% reduction from baseline) at week 12 was significantly greater with baricitinib 4 mg daily, compared with monthly cyclophosphamide infusions at 0.7 mg/m² (70% vs. 43%; P < .0001). At week 24, 76.6% of the baricitinib group met the primary endpoint, compared with 50% in the cyclophosphamide group. Two multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints, C3 serum level and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K), also showed statistical significance at 12 weeks (P < .01).

The 6-month trial included 60 adult patients (age 18 years and older) with a clinical diagnosis of lupus nephritis fulfilling classification criteria for LN grade III and IV. Patients needed to demonstrate objective signs of active nephritis consistent with persistent proteinuria greater than 0.5 g/day and/or cellular casts at screening to be included. Additional inclusion criteria were SLEDAI-2K greater than 4 and assessment of anti–double-stranded DNA and C3 serum levels at study entry. The patients were randomly assigned to two equal-sized groups, with one group receiving baricitinib 4 mg daily and a monthly placebo saline infusion, and the other group receiving monthly cyclophosphamide infusions and oral placebo tablets.

The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the two treatment groups, with 48% of patients in the baricitinib group and 46% in the cyclophosphamide group experiencing adverse events. Only three serious adverse events, specifically serious infection or herpes zoster, were recorded, leading to treatment discontinuation.

Two patients (6.6%) in the baricitinib group and one patient (3.3%) in the cyclophosphamide group were affected. The researchers recorded no major adverse cardiovascular or venous thromboembolic events, which are known to occur at higher rates among some users of baricitinib and other JAK inhibitors. The safety profile of baricitinib was consistent with observations made in other inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases, and no new risks were identified.

However, there were some concerns expressed by audience members during the presentation.

“The primary endpoint is limited at proteinuria, while biopsy is considered the gold standard for measuring efficacy,” said Eric F. Morand, MD, head of the Monash Health rheumatology unit, Melbourne. This was not the only critical comment regarding the study that emerged during the discussion. The use of a 4-mg dosage regimen throughout the entire study duration (despite official recommendations suggesting a 2-mg dosage in the long run) and the positive outcomes observed in the control group treated with cyclophosphamide were also mentioned.

Dr. Hassanien acknowledged that this is a small and relatively short study and disclosed plans to extend the follow-up period to 1 year and conduct a renal biopsy.

Dr. Hassanien reported no relevant financial relationships. Assiut University funded the trial.

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

MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.

The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”

The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).

A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).

The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.

When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”

Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”

“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”

Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”

The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.

MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.

The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”

The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).

A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).

The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.

When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”

Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”

“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”

Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”

The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.

MILAN – Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are using biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) have fivefold higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than does the general population, according to the first study to explore risk of ILD in this particular patient group.

The study also found 10-fold higher risk of ILD in patients with RA who were starting a b/tsDMARD, compared with the general population, while the addition of methotrexate did not appear to be associated with increased risk for ILD in either RA nor PsA.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Sella Aarrestad Provan, MD, of the Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases at Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, presented the results at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Explaining the motivation for the study, Dr. Aarrestad Provan said that, in RA, methotrexate’s role in ILD development remained unclear, while some small studies linked b/tsDMARDs with risk for ILD. “In PsA, very few studies have explored the risk of ILD, and no systematic studies have looked at ILD risk factors in this disease.”

The researchers analyzed patient data from hospital and death registries across five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) and compared them with general population controls. They calculated risk ratios for people who developed ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD (with or without methotrexate).

A total of 37,010 patients with RA, 12,341 with PsA, and 569,451 members of the general population were included in the analysis, with respective disease durations of 10 and 8.9 years. Methotrexate was used along with b/tsDMARDs in 49% of patients with RA and 41% with PsA, and most patients were already on methotrexate when b/tsDMARDs were started. The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept (Enbrel) was the most commonly used b/tsDMARD in both RA and PsA, followed by infliximab (Remicade and biosimilars) and adalimumab (Humira and biosimilars).

The incidence of ILD within 5 years of starting a b/tsDMARD was 0.8% in patients with RA, 0.2% with PsA, and 0.1% in the general population, and these findings generated hazard ratios of 10.1 (95% confidence interval, 8.6-11.9) for RA and 5.0 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) for PsA, compared with the general population as reference.

When the risk for ILD was explored according to methotrexate use in RA patients, “there was no signal of increased risk across patients using methotrexate,” Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported. When risk of ILD was explored according to b/tsDMARD use in RA patients, a signal of increased risk was observed with rituximab, she noted, “but upon adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, this association was no longer significant, but was still numerically increased.”

Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, vice principal, professor of rheumatology, and head of the College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow, remarked that he “loves results that are unexpected” and thanked the researcher for such an “important study.”

“For years, we’ve been interested in the potential for DMARDs to impact interstitial lung disease, with potential that drugs could make it worse, or better,” he said. “This study is wonderful and novel because first of all, there hasn’t, until now, been a direct comparison between RA and PsA in quite this way, and secondly, we haven’t really assessed whether there is a drug-related risk in PsA. Note that drug related does not necessarily imply causality.”

Regarding mechanisms, Dr. McInnes added that “epidemiologic studies suggest that PsA often coexists with the presence of cardiometabolic syndrome and obesity, which has a higher prevalence in PsA than in RA. Obesity is also related to ILD. As such, it begs the question of whether cardiometabolic, diabetes, or obesity-related features may give us a clue as to what is going on in these PsA patients.”

The research was supported by NordForsk and FOREUM. Dr. Aarrestad Provan reported serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and receiving grant/research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. McInnes declared no disclosures relevant to this study.

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, [email protected]

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, [email protected]

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?

Even the plague wanted to visit Stonehenge

We’re about to blow your mind: The history you learned in school was often inaccurate. Shocking, we know, so we’ll give you a minute to process this incredible news.

Better? Good. Now, let’s look back at high school European history. The Black Death, specifically. The common narrative is that the Mongols, while besieging a Crimean city belonging to the Genoese, catapulted dead bodies infected with some mystery disease that turned out to be the plague. The Genoese then brought the plague back to Italy, and from there, we all know the rest of the story.

Ian Hodkinson, [email protected]

The Black Death was certainly extremely important to the development of modern Europe as we know it, but the history books gloss over the much longer history of the plague. Yersinia pestis did not suddenly appear unbidden in a Mongol war camp in 1347. The Black Death wasn’t even the first horrific, continent-wide pandemic caused by the plague; the Plague of Justinian 800 years earlier crippled the Byzantine Empire during an expansionist phase and killed anywhere between 15 million and 100 million.

Today, though, LOTME looks even deeper into history, nearly beyond even history itself, back into the depths of early Bronze Age northern Europe. Specifically, to two ancient burial sites in England, where researchers have identified three 4,000-year-old cases of Y. pestis, the first recorded incidence of the disease in Britain.

Two of the individuals, identified through analysis of dental pulp, were young children buried at a mass grave in Somerset, while the third, a middle-aged woman, was found in a ring cairn in Cumbria. These sites are hundreds of miles apart, yet carbon dating suggests all three people lived and died at roughly the same time. The strain found is very similar to other samples of plague found across central and western Europe starting around 3,000 BCE, suggesting a single, easily spread disease affecting a large area in a relatively small period of time. In other words, a pandemic. Even in these ancient times, the world was connected. Not even the island of Britain could escape.

Beyond that though, the research helps confirm the cyclical nature of the plague; over time, it loses its effectiveness and goes into hiding, only to mutate and come roaring back. This is a story with absolutely no relevance at all to the modern world. Nope, no plagues or pandemics going around right now, no viruses fading into the background in any way. What a ridiculous inference to make.
 

Uncovering the invisible with artificial intelligence

This week in “What Else Can AI Do?” new research shows that a computer program can reveal brain injury that couldn’t be seen before with typical MRI.

The hot new AI, birthed by researchers at New York University, could potentially be a game changer by linking repeated head impacts with tiny, structural changes in the brains of athletes who have not been diagnosed with a concussion. By using machine learning to train the AI, the researchers were, for the first time, able to distinguish the brain of athletes who played contact sports (football, soccer, lacrosse) from those participating in noncontact sports such as baseball, basketball, and cross-country.

Andrea Danti/Thinkstock

How did they do it? The investigators “designed statistical techniques that gave their computer program the ability to ‘learn’ how to predict exposure to repeated head impacts using mathematical models,” they explained in a written statement. Adding in data from the MRI scans of 81 male athletes with no known concussion diagnosis and the ability to identify unusual brain features between athletes with and without head trauma allowed the AI to predict results with accuracy even Miss Cleo would envy.

“This method may provide an important diagnostic tool not only for concussion, but also for detecting the damage that stems from subtler and more frequent head impacts,” said lead author Junbo Chen, an engineering doctoral candidate at NYU. That could make this new AI a valuable asset to science and medicine.

There are many things the human brain can do that AI can’t, and delegation could be one of them. Examining the data that represent the human brain in minute detail? Maybe we leave that to the machine.
 

Talk about your field promotions

If you’re a surgeon doing an amputation, the list of possible assistants pretty much starts and ends in only one place: Not the closest available janitor.

That may seem like an oddly obvious thing for us to say, but there’s at least one former Mainz (Germany) University Hospital physician who really needed to get this bit of advice before he attempted an unassisted toe amputation back in October of 2020. Yes, that does seem like kind of a long time ago for us to be reporting it now, but the details of the incident only just came to light a few days ago, thanks to German public broadcaster SWR.

Ente75/Wikipedia

Since it was just a toe, the surgeon thought he could perform the operation without any help. The toe, unfortunately, had other plans. The partially anesthetized patient got restless in the operating room, but with no actual trained nurse in the vicinity, the surgeon asked the closest available person – that would be the janitor – to lend a hand.

The surgical manager heard about these goings-on and got to the operating room too late to stop the procedure but soon enough to see the cleaning staffer “at the operating table with a bloody suction cup and a bloody compress in their hands,” SWR recently reported.

The incident was reported to the hospital’s medical director and the surgeon was fired, but since the patient experienced no complications not much fuss was made about it at the time.

Well, guess what? It’s toe-tally our job to make a fuss about these kinds of things. Or could it be that our job, much like the surgeon’s employment and the patient’s digit, is here toe-day and gone toe-morrow?