MDedge Rheumatology

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

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

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

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

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

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

Monkey see, monkey do (advanced medical procedures)

We don’t tend to think too kindly of our prehistoric ancestors. We throw around the word “caveman” – hardly a term of endearment – and depictions of Paleolithic humans rarely flatter their subjects. In many ways, though, our conceptions are correct. Humans of the Stone Age lived short, often brutish lives, but civilization had to start somewhere, and our prehistoric ancestors were often far more capable than we give them credit for.

Tim Maloney/Nature

Case in point is a recent discovery from an archaeological dig in Borneo: A young adult who lived 31,000 years ago was discovered with the lower third of their left leg amputated. Save the clever retort about the person’s untimely death, because this individual did not die from the surgery. The amputation occurred when the individual was a child and the subject lived for several years after the operation.

Amputation is usually unnecessary given our current level of medical technology, but it’s actually quite an advanced procedure, and this example predates the previous first case of amputation by nearly 25,000 years. Not only did the surgeon need to cut at an appropriate place, they needed to understand blood loss, the risk of infection, and the need to preserve skin in order to seal the wound back up. That’s quite a lot for our Paleolithic doctor to know, and it’s even more impressive considering the, shall we say, limited tools they would have had available to perform the operation.

Rocks. They cut off the leg with a rock. And it worked.

This discovery also gives insight into the amputee’s society. Someone knew that amputation was the right move for this person, indicating that it had been done before. In addition, the individual would not have been able to spring back into action hunting mammoths right away, they would require care for the rest of their lives. And clearly the community provided, given the individual’s continued life post operation and their burial in a place of honor.

If only the American health care system was capable of such feats of compassion, but that would require the majority of politicians to be as clever as cavemen. We’re not hopeful on those odds.
 

The first step is admitting you have a crying baby. The second step is … a step

Knock, knock.

Who’s there?

Crying baby.

Crying baby who?

Current Biology/Ohmura et al.

Crying baby who … umm … doesn’t have a punchline. Let’s try this again.

A priest, a rabbi, and a crying baby walk into a bar and … nope, that’s not going to work.

Why did the crying baby cross the road? Ugh, never mind.

Clearly, crying babies are no laughing matter. What crying babies need is science. And the latest innovation – it’s fresh from a study conducted at the RIKEN Center for Brain Science in Saitama, Japan – in the science of crying babies is … walking. Researchers observed 21 unhappy infants and compared their responses to four strategies: being held by their walking mothers, held by their sitting mothers, lying in a motionless crib, or lying in a rocking cot.

The best strategy is for the mother – the experiment only involved mothers, but the results should apply to any caregiver – to pick up the crying baby, walk around for 5 minutes, sit for another 5-8 minutes, and then put the infant back to bed, the researchers said in a written statement.

The walking strategy, however, isn’t perfect. “Walking for 5 minutes promoted sleep, but only for crying infants. Surprisingly, this effect was absent when babies were already calm beforehand,” lead author Kumi O. Kuroda, MD, PhD, explained in a separate statement from the center.

It also doesn’t work on adults. We could not get a crying LOTME writer to fall asleep no matter how long his mother carried him around the office.
 

New way to detect Parkinson’s has already passed the sniff test

We humans aren’t generally known for our superpowers, but a woman from Scotland may just be the Smelling Superhero. Not only was she able to literally smell Parkinson’s disease (PD) on her husband 12 years before his diagnosis; she is also the reason that scientists have found a new way to test for PD.

© Siri Stafford/Thinkstock

Joy Milne, a retired nurse, told the BBC that her husband “had this musty rather unpleasant smell especially round his shoulders and the back of his neck and his skin had definitely changed.” She put two and two together after he had been diagnosed with PD and she came in contact with others with the same scent at a support group.

Researchers at the University of Manchester, working with Ms. Milne, have now created a skin test that uses mass spectroscopy to analyze a sample of the patient’s sebum in just 3 minutes and is 95% accurate. They tested 79 people with Parkinson’s and 71 without using this method and found “specific compounds unique to PD sebum samples when compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, we have identified two classes of lipids, namely, triacylglycerides and diglycerides, as components of human sebum that are significantly differentially expressed in PD,” they said in JACS Au.

This test could be available to general physicians within 2 years, which would provide new opportunities to the people who are waiting in line for neurologic consults. Ms. Milne’s husband passed away in 2015, but her courageous help and amazing nasal abilities may help millions down the line.
 

The power of flirting

It’s a common office stereotype: Women flirt with the boss to get ahead in the workplace, while men in power sexually harass women in subordinate positions. Nobody ever suspects the guys in the cubicles. A recent study takes a different look and paints a different picture.

Mart Production/Pexels

The investigators conducted multiple online and lab experiments in how social sexual identity drives behavior in a workplace setting in relation to job placement. They found that it was most often men in lower-power positions who are insecure about their roles who initiate social sexual behavior, even though they know it’s offensive. Why? Power.

They randomly paired over 200 undergraduate students in a male/female fashion, placed them in subordinate and boss-like roles, and asked them to choose from a series of social sexual questions they wanted to ask their teammate. Male participants who were placed in subordinate positions to a female boss chose social sexual questions more often than did male bosses, female subordinates, and female bosses.

So what does this say about the threat of workplace harassment? The researchers found that men and women differ in their strategy for flirtation. For men, it’s a way to gain more power. But problems arise when they rationalize their behavior with a character trait like being a “big flirt.”

“When we take on that identity, it leads to certain behavioral patterns that reinforce the identity. And then, people use that identity as an excuse,” lead author Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement from the school.

The researchers make a point to note that the study isn’t about whether flirting is good or bad, nor are they suggesting that people in powerful positions don’t sexually harass underlings. It’s meant to provide insight to improve corporate sexual harassment training. A comment or conversation held in jest could potentially be a warning sign for future behavior.

Monkey see, monkey do (advanced medical procedures)

We don’t tend to think too kindly of our prehistoric ancestors. We throw around the word “caveman” – hardly a term of endearment – and depictions of Paleolithic humans rarely flatter their subjects. In many ways, though, our conceptions are correct. Humans of the Stone Age lived short, often brutish lives, but civilization had to start somewhere, and our prehistoric ancestors were often far more capable than we give them credit for.

Tim Maloney/Nature

Case in point is a recent discovery from an archaeological dig in Borneo: A young adult who lived 31,000 years ago was discovered with the lower third of their left leg amputated. Save the clever retort about the person’s untimely death, because this individual did not die from the surgery. The amputation occurred when the individual was a child and the subject lived for several years after the operation.

Amputation is usually unnecessary given our current level of medical technology, but it’s actually quite an advanced procedure, and this example predates the previous first case of amputation by nearly 25,000 years. Not only did the surgeon need to cut at an appropriate place, they needed to understand blood loss, the risk of infection, and the need to preserve skin in order to seal the wound back up. That’s quite a lot for our Paleolithic doctor to know, and it’s even more impressive considering the, shall we say, limited tools they would have had available to perform the operation.

Rocks. They cut off the leg with a rock. And it worked.

This discovery also gives insight into the amputee’s society. Someone knew that amputation was the right move for this person, indicating that it had been done before. In addition, the individual would not have been able to spring back into action hunting mammoths right away, they would require care for the rest of their lives. And clearly the community provided, given the individual’s continued life post operation and their burial in a place of honor.

If only the American health care system was capable of such feats of compassion, but that would require the majority of politicians to be as clever as cavemen. We’re not hopeful on those odds.
 

The first step is admitting you have a crying baby. The second step is … a step

Knock, knock.

Who’s there?

Crying baby.

Crying baby who?

Current Biology/Ohmura et al.

Crying baby who … umm … doesn’t have a punchline. Let’s try this again.

A priest, a rabbi, and a crying baby walk into a bar and … nope, that’s not going to work.

Why did the crying baby cross the road? Ugh, never mind.

Clearly, crying babies are no laughing matter. What crying babies need is science. And the latest innovation – it’s fresh from a study conducted at the RIKEN Center for Brain Science in Saitama, Japan – in the science of crying babies is … walking. Researchers observed 21 unhappy infants and compared their responses to four strategies: being held by their walking mothers, held by their sitting mothers, lying in a motionless crib, or lying in a rocking cot.

The best strategy is for the mother – the experiment only involved mothers, but the results should apply to any caregiver – to pick up the crying baby, walk around for 5 minutes, sit for another 5-8 minutes, and then put the infant back to bed, the researchers said in a written statement.

The walking strategy, however, isn’t perfect. “Walking for 5 minutes promoted sleep, but only for crying infants. Surprisingly, this effect was absent when babies were already calm beforehand,” lead author Kumi O. Kuroda, MD, PhD, explained in a separate statement from the center.

It also doesn’t work on adults. We could not get a crying LOTME writer to fall asleep no matter how long his mother carried him around the office.
 

New way to detect Parkinson’s has already passed the sniff test

We humans aren’t generally known for our superpowers, but a woman from Scotland may just be the Smelling Superhero. Not only was she able to literally smell Parkinson’s disease (PD) on her husband 12 years before his diagnosis; she is also the reason that scientists have found a new way to test for PD.

© Siri Stafford/Thinkstock

Joy Milne, a retired nurse, told the BBC that her husband “had this musty rather unpleasant smell especially round his shoulders and the back of his neck and his skin had definitely changed.” She put two and two together after he had been diagnosed with PD and she came in contact with others with the same scent at a support group.

Researchers at the University of Manchester, working with Ms. Milne, have now created a skin test that uses mass spectroscopy to analyze a sample of the patient’s sebum in just 3 minutes and is 95% accurate. They tested 79 people with Parkinson’s and 71 without using this method and found “specific compounds unique to PD sebum samples when compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, we have identified two classes of lipids, namely, triacylglycerides and diglycerides, as components of human sebum that are significantly differentially expressed in PD,” they said in JACS Au.

This test could be available to general physicians within 2 years, which would provide new opportunities to the people who are waiting in line for neurologic consults. Ms. Milne’s husband passed away in 2015, but her courageous help and amazing nasal abilities may help millions down the line.
 

The power of flirting

It’s a common office stereotype: Women flirt with the boss to get ahead in the workplace, while men in power sexually harass women in subordinate positions. Nobody ever suspects the guys in the cubicles. A recent study takes a different look and paints a different picture.

Mart Production/Pexels

The investigators conducted multiple online and lab experiments in how social sexual identity drives behavior in a workplace setting in relation to job placement. They found that it was most often men in lower-power positions who are insecure about their roles who initiate social sexual behavior, even though they know it’s offensive. Why? Power.

They randomly paired over 200 undergraduate students in a male/female fashion, placed them in subordinate and boss-like roles, and asked them to choose from a series of social sexual questions they wanted to ask their teammate. Male participants who were placed in subordinate positions to a female boss chose social sexual questions more often than did male bosses, female subordinates, and female bosses.

So what does this say about the threat of workplace harassment? The researchers found that men and women differ in their strategy for flirtation. For men, it’s a way to gain more power. But problems arise when they rationalize their behavior with a character trait like being a “big flirt.”

“When we take on that identity, it leads to certain behavioral patterns that reinforce the identity. And then, people use that identity as an excuse,” lead author Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement from the school.

The researchers make a point to note that the study isn’t about whether flirting is good or bad, nor are they suggesting that people in powerful positions don’t sexually harass underlings. It’s meant to provide insight to improve corporate sexual harassment training. A comment or conversation held in jest could potentially be a warning sign for future behavior.

Monkey see, monkey do (advanced medical procedures)

We don’t tend to think too kindly of our prehistoric ancestors. We throw around the word “caveman” – hardly a term of endearment – and depictions of Paleolithic humans rarely flatter their subjects. In many ways, though, our conceptions are correct. Humans of the Stone Age lived short, often brutish lives, but civilization had to start somewhere, and our prehistoric ancestors were often far more capable than we give them credit for.

Tim Maloney/Nature

Case in point is a recent discovery from an archaeological dig in Borneo: A young adult who lived 31,000 years ago was discovered with the lower third of their left leg amputated. Save the clever retort about the person’s untimely death, because this individual did not die from the surgery. The amputation occurred when the individual was a child and the subject lived for several years after the operation.

Amputation is usually unnecessary given our current level of medical technology, but it’s actually quite an advanced procedure, and this example predates the previous first case of amputation by nearly 25,000 years. Not only did the surgeon need to cut at an appropriate place, they needed to understand blood loss, the risk of infection, and the need to preserve skin in order to seal the wound back up. That’s quite a lot for our Paleolithic doctor to know, and it’s even more impressive considering the, shall we say, limited tools they would have had available to perform the operation.

Rocks. They cut off the leg with a rock. And it worked.

This discovery also gives insight into the amputee’s society. Someone knew that amputation was the right move for this person, indicating that it had been done before. In addition, the individual would not have been able to spring back into action hunting mammoths right away, they would require care for the rest of their lives. And clearly the community provided, given the individual’s continued life post operation and their burial in a place of honor.

If only the American health care system was capable of such feats of compassion, but that would require the majority of politicians to be as clever as cavemen. We’re not hopeful on those odds.
 

The first step is admitting you have a crying baby. The second step is … a step

Knock, knock.

Who’s there?

Crying baby.

Crying baby who?

Current Biology/Ohmura et al.

Crying baby who … umm … doesn’t have a punchline. Let’s try this again.

A priest, a rabbi, and a crying baby walk into a bar and … nope, that’s not going to work.

Why did the crying baby cross the road? Ugh, never mind.

Clearly, crying babies are no laughing matter. What crying babies need is science. And the latest innovation – it’s fresh from a study conducted at the RIKEN Center for Brain Science in Saitama, Japan – in the science of crying babies is … walking. Researchers observed 21 unhappy infants and compared their responses to four strategies: being held by their walking mothers, held by their sitting mothers, lying in a motionless crib, or lying in a rocking cot.

The best strategy is for the mother – the experiment only involved mothers, but the results should apply to any caregiver – to pick up the crying baby, walk around for 5 minutes, sit for another 5-8 minutes, and then put the infant back to bed, the researchers said in a written statement.

The walking strategy, however, isn’t perfect. “Walking for 5 minutes promoted sleep, but only for crying infants. Surprisingly, this effect was absent when babies were already calm beforehand,” lead author Kumi O. Kuroda, MD, PhD, explained in a separate statement from the center.

It also doesn’t work on adults. We could not get a crying LOTME writer to fall asleep no matter how long his mother carried him around the office.
 

New way to detect Parkinson’s has already passed the sniff test

We humans aren’t generally known for our superpowers, but a woman from Scotland may just be the Smelling Superhero. Not only was she able to literally smell Parkinson’s disease (PD) on her husband 12 years before his diagnosis; she is also the reason that scientists have found a new way to test for PD.

© Siri Stafford/Thinkstock

Joy Milne, a retired nurse, told the BBC that her husband “had this musty rather unpleasant smell especially round his shoulders and the back of his neck and his skin had definitely changed.” She put two and two together after he had been diagnosed with PD and she came in contact with others with the same scent at a support group.

Researchers at the University of Manchester, working with Ms. Milne, have now created a skin test that uses mass spectroscopy to analyze a sample of the patient’s sebum in just 3 minutes and is 95% accurate. They tested 79 people with Parkinson’s and 71 without using this method and found “specific compounds unique to PD sebum samples when compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, we have identified two classes of lipids, namely, triacylglycerides and diglycerides, as components of human sebum that are significantly differentially expressed in PD,” they said in JACS Au.

This test could be available to general physicians within 2 years, which would provide new opportunities to the people who are waiting in line for neurologic consults. Ms. Milne’s husband passed away in 2015, but her courageous help and amazing nasal abilities may help millions down the line.
 

The power of flirting

It’s a common office stereotype: Women flirt with the boss to get ahead in the workplace, while men in power sexually harass women in subordinate positions. Nobody ever suspects the guys in the cubicles. A recent study takes a different look and paints a different picture.

Mart Production/Pexels

The investigators conducted multiple online and lab experiments in how social sexual identity drives behavior in a workplace setting in relation to job placement. They found that it was most often men in lower-power positions who are insecure about their roles who initiate social sexual behavior, even though they know it’s offensive. Why? Power.

They randomly paired over 200 undergraduate students in a male/female fashion, placed them in subordinate and boss-like roles, and asked them to choose from a series of social sexual questions they wanted to ask their teammate. Male participants who were placed in subordinate positions to a female boss chose social sexual questions more often than did male bosses, female subordinates, and female bosses.

So what does this say about the threat of workplace harassment? The researchers found that men and women differ in their strategy for flirtation. For men, it’s a way to gain more power. But problems arise when they rationalize their behavior with a character trait like being a “big flirt.”

“When we take on that identity, it leads to certain behavioral patterns that reinforce the identity. And then, people use that identity as an excuse,” lead author Laura Kray of the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement from the school.

The researchers make a point to note that the study isn’t about whether flirting is good or bad, nor are they suggesting that people in powerful positions don’t sexually harass underlings. It’s meant to provide insight to improve corporate sexual harassment training. A comment or conversation held in jest could potentially be a warning sign for future behavior.

GHENT, BELGIUM – The Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) should be the preferred tool for disease activity assessment in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) because it is not influenced by gender, according to new data on gender and patient outcomes as assessed by commonly used scoring methods and indices across the spectrum of SpA disease subtypes.

In contrast, researchers led by Diego Benavent, MD, a rheumatologist at La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, found that gender influenced the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in all three disease subtypes: axSpA, peripheral SpA (pSpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

In addition, data show that women with axSpA, pSpA, or PsA reported higher disease activity, functional limitation, and poorer overall health.

Dr. Benavent presented the results at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides. The study was also published online Sept. 12 in RMD Open.

“The ASDAS is more likely to be the activity score used because we are reassured that it performs well in both men and women. However, there is a need for more appropriate validated indices that are not affected by gender in peripheral spondyloarthropathies and psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Benavent said.

So far, most data concerning gender differences have been described in patients with axSpA, and with various measurement instruments available to assess disease activity, function, and overall health. Dr. Benavent and his colleagues wanted to investigate the influence of gender on disease outcomes across not only axSpA but pSpA and PsA, too, to see if there were differences in the relationship between gender and these other disease subtypes.

In previous studies, ASDAS has shown better psychometric properties than the BASDAI for disease activity in axSpA. “But there is little validation in pSpA and PsA, and the influence of gender in the outcomes assessed by these instruments is unknown.

“Compared with men, women with an axSpA diagnosis tend to have more frequent peripheral and extramusculoskeletal manifestations, such as enthesitis and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Benavent said in an interview. “However, males with axSpA present more radiographic damage and objective signs of inflammation.”

Martin Rudwaleit, MD, head of the department of internal medicine and rheumatology at Klinikum Bielefeld (Germany), who attended the talk, reflected on the findings.

“Decades ago, ankylosing spondylitis was largely considered a male disease as found in 80%-90% of cases. Later, with MRI, we started to diagnose patients earlier and learned that more females have the disease and that females have less structural damage in the spine than men. As such, male gender is a predictor for worse radiographic progression,” Dr. Rudwaleit said.

“The question is whether the female patients who are considered to have axSpA really have axSpA, or do they have other origins of their back pain?” he continued.

“Also, this study shows us that females report a wider spectrum of symptoms than males. For example, headache, general discomfort, and overall, a broader spectrum of symptoms than men. This might have contributed to the fact that, previously, diagnoses of axSpA might have been made later in females than males.”

Large study across SpA phenotypes and disease-scoring methods

A total of 4,185 patients from 24 countries participated, with 65% having axSpA, 10% pSpA, and 25% PsA. Females totaled 38.8% of patients across all three types of spondyloarthritis. The researchers drew the data from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-perSpA study.

The researchers looked for associations between gender and disease activity as measured by ASDAS and BASDAI, C-reactive protein (CRP), physical function with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), overall health with the ASAS Health Index (ASAS HI), and European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) outcomes.

In axSpA, there was a split of 68% men vs. 32% women. The researchers observed certain factors that were more common among men: smoking (49% vs. 32%), HLA-B27 positivity (83% vs. 70%), and elevated CRP (75% vs. 66%). Women more often had enthesitis (45% vs. 39%) and fibromyalgia (17% vs. 3%).

In pSpA, the gender split was approximately equal at 47% men and 53% women. But compared with women, men had more inflammatory back pain (62% vs. 50%), HLA-B27 positivity (70% vs. 54%), and elevated CRP (75% vs. 66%). Women more frequently had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, 8% vs. 3%) and fibromyalgia (18% vs. 3%).

An approximately equal gender split was also found with PsA (48.5% men vs. 51.5% women). Men more frequently reported ever drinking alcohol than did women (63% vs. 26%), whereas women had a greater family history of both spondyloarthritis (41% vs. 32%) and psoriasis (41% vs. 31%). Women also more often reported enthesitis (49% vs. 42%) and fibromyalgia (19% vs. 3%) than men.

“These data strongly suggest that female patients showed significantly more fibromyalgia across all disease subtypes, and the magnitude of the difference with men is notable,” Dr. Benavent said.”Fibromyalgia is associated with pain and worse patient-reported outcomes, which may bias outcomes with disease activity scores.”

When the researchers analyzed outcomes by the different scores and indices for each disease subtype, they found that females had worse scores for most indices (ASDAS, BASDAI, patient’s global assessment (PtGA), BASFI, ASAS HI, and EQ-5D). “However, for CRP, men presented worse scores across axSpA and pSpA, and no differences were found with women in PsA,” Dr. Benavent added.

Although there are differences between the genders according to the scores, these differences may be confounded and this will affect the score outcome: for example, confounding by fibromyalgia in women, he explained.

To avoid the confounding effect, multivariable regression models were used, including the dependent variable as the explored outcome: for example, with BASDAI or ASDAS serving as the dependent variable and gender as the main independent variable, along with adjustments for potential confounders. When the influence of gender on BASDAI was considered, Dr. Benavent and colleagues found that being female increased all scores across the spectrum: axSpA (0.39 units; 95%  confidence interval, 0.2-0.58), pSpA (1.22 units; 95%  CI, 0.77-1.69), and PsA (0.88 units; 95%  CI, 0.59-1.19). When the influence of gender on ASDAS was considered, the researchers found that being female had no effect on axSpA (0.02 units; 95%  CI, –0.07 to 0.11), but did for pSpA (0.36 units; 95%  CI, 0.15-0.58) and PsA (0.25 units; 95%  CI, 0.12-0.38).

“ASDAS is better than BASDAI because it is similar in males and females, but this only holds true in axSpA, not in pSpA or PsA,” Dr. Benavent concluded.

Dr. Benavent declared serving on speakers bureaus for Janssen, Galapagos, and AbbVie, and receiving grant or research support from Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Rudwaleit declared financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – The Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) should be the preferred tool for disease activity assessment in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) because it is not influenced by gender, according to new data on gender and patient outcomes as assessed by commonly used scoring methods and indices across the spectrum of SpA disease subtypes.

In contrast, researchers led by Diego Benavent, MD, a rheumatologist at La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, found that gender influenced the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in all three disease subtypes: axSpA, peripheral SpA (pSpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

In addition, data show that women with axSpA, pSpA, or PsA reported higher disease activity, functional limitation, and poorer overall health.

Dr. Benavent presented the results at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides. The study was also published online Sept. 12 in RMD Open.

“The ASDAS is more likely to be the activity score used because we are reassured that it performs well in both men and women. However, there is a need for more appropriate validated indices that are not affected by gender in peripheral spondyloarthropathies and psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Benavent said.

So far, most data concerning gender differences have been described in patients with axSpA, and with various measurement instruments available to assess disease activity, function, and overall health. Dr. Benavent and his colleagues wanted to investigate the influence of gender on disease outcomes across not only axSpA but pSpA and PsA, too, to see if there were differences in the relationship between gender and these other disease subtypes.

In previous studies, ASDAS has shown better psychometric properties than the BASDAI for disease activity in axSpA. “But there is little validation in pSpA and PsA, and the influence of gender in the outcomes assessed by these instruments is unknown.

“Compared with men, women with an axSpA diagnosis tend to have more frequent peripheral and extramusculoskeletal manifestations, such as enthesitis and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Benavent said in an interview. “However, males with axSpA present more radiographic damage and objective signs of inflammation.”

Martin Rudwaleit, MD, head of the department of internal medicine and rheumatology at Klinikum Bielefeld (Germany), who attended the talk, reflected on the findings.

“Decades ago, ankylosing spondylitis was largely considered a male disease as found in 80%-90% of cases. Later, with MRI, we started to diagnose patients earlier and learned that more females have the disease and that females have less structural damage in the spine than men. As such, male gender is a predictor for worse radiographic progression,” Dr. Rudwaleit said.

“The question is whether the female patients who are considered to have axSpA really have axSpA, or do they have other origins of their back pain?” he continued.

“Also, this study shows us that females report a wider spectrum of symptoms than males. For example, headache, general discomfort, and overall, a broader spectrum of symptoms than men. This might have contributed to the fact that, previously, diagnoses of axSpA might have been made later in females than males.”

Large study across SpA phenotypes and disease-scoring methods

A total of 4,185 patients from 24 countries participated, with 65% having axSpA, 10% pSpA, and 25% PsA. Females totaled 38.8% of patients across all three types of spondyloarthritis. The researchers drew the data from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-perSpA study.

The researchers looked for associations between gender and disease activity as measured by ASDAS and BASDAI, C-reactive protein (CRP), physical function with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), overall health with the ASAS Health Index (ASAS HI), and European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) outcomes.

In axSpA, there was a split of 68% men vs. 32% women. The researchers observed certain factors that were more common among men: smoking (49% vs. 32%), HLA-B27 positivity (83% vs. 70%), and elevated CRP (75% vs. 66%). Women more often had enthesitis (45% vs. 39%) and fibromyalgia (17% vs. 3%).

In pSpA, the gender split was approximately equal at 47% men and 53% women. But compared with women, men had more inflammatory back pain (62% vs. 50%), HLA-B27 positivity (70% vs. 54%), and elevated CRP (75% vs. 66%). Women more frequently had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, 8% vs. 3%) and fibromyalgia (18% vs. 3%).

An approximately equal gender split was also found with PsA (48.5% men vs. 51.5% women). Men more frequently reported ever drinking alcohol than did women (63% vs. 26%), whereas women had a greater family history of both spondyloarthritis (41% vs. 32%) and psoriasis (41% vs. 31%). Women also more often reported enthesitis (49% vs. 42%) and fibromyalgia (19% vs. 3%) than men.

“These data strongly suggest that female patients showed significantly more fibromyalgia across all disease subtypes, and the magnitude of the difference with men is notable,” Dr. Benavent said.”Fibromyalgia is associated with pain and worse patient-reported outcomes, which may bias outcomes with disease activity scores.”

When the researchers analyzed outcomes by the different scores and indices for each disease subtype, they found that females had worse scores for most indices (ASDAS, BASDAI, patient’s global assessment (PtGA), BASFI, ASAS HI, and EQ-5D). “However, for CRP, men presented worse scores across axSpA and pSpA, and no differences were found with women in PsA,” Dr. Benavent added.

Although there are differences between the genders according to the scores, these differences may be confounded and this will affect the score outcome: for example, confounding by fibromyalgia in women, he explained.

To avoid the confounding effect, multivariable regression models were used, including the dependent variable as the explored outcome: for example, with BASDAI or ASDAS serving as the dependent variable and gender as the main independent variable, along with adjustments for potential confounders. When the influence of gender on BASDAI was considered, Dr. Benavent and colleagues found that being female increased all scores across the spectrum: axSpA (0.39 units; 95%  confidence interval, 0.2-0.58), pSpA (1.22 units; 95%  CI, 0.77-1.69), and PsA (0.88 units; 95%  CI, 0.59-1.19). When the influence of gender on ASDAS was considered, the researchers found that being female had no effect on axSpA (0.02 units; 95%  CI, –0.07 to 0.11), but did for pSpA (0.36 units; 95%  CI, 0.15-0.58) and PsA (0.25 units; 95%  CI, 0.12-0.38).

“ASDAS is better than BASDAI because it is similar in males and females, but this only holds true in axSpA, not in pSpA or PsA,” Dr. Benavent concluded.

Dr. Benavent declared serving on speakers bureaus for Janssen, Galapagos, and AbbVie, and receiving grant or research support from Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Rudwaleit declared financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – The Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) should be the preferred tool for disease activity assessment in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) because it is not influenced by gender, according to new data on gender and patient outcomes as assessed by commonly used scoring methods and indices across the spectrum of SpA disease subtypes.

In contrast, researchers led by Diego Benavent, MD, a rheumatologist at La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, found that gender influenced the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in all three disease subtypes: axSpA, peripheral SpA (pSpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

In addition, data show that women with axSpA, pSpA, or PsA reported higher disease activity, functional limitation, and poorer overall health.

Dr. Benavent presented the results at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides. The study was also published online Sept. 12 in RMD Open.

“The ASDAS is more likely to be the activity score used because we are reassured that it performs well in both men and women. However, there is a need for more appropriate validated indices that are not affected by gender in peripheral spondyloarthropathies and psoriatic arthritis,” Dr. Benavent said.

So far, most data concerning gender differences have been described in patients with axSpA, and with various measurement instruments available to assess disease activity, function, and overall health. Dr. Benavent and his colleagues wanted to investigate the influence of gender on disease outcomes across not only axSpA but pSpA and PsA, too, to see if there were differences in the relationship between gender and these other disease subtypes.

In previous studies, ASDAS has shown better psychometric properties than the BASDAI for disease activity in axSpA. “But there is little validation in pSpA and PsA, and the influence of gender in the outcomes assessed by these instruments is unknown.

“Compared with men, women with an axSpA diagnosis tend to have more frequent peripheral and extramusculoskeletal manifestations, such as enthesitis and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Benavent said in an interview. “However, males with axSpA present more radiographic damage and objective signs of inflammation.”

Martin Rudwaleit, MD, head of the department of internal medicine and rheumatology at Klinikum Bielefeld (Germany), who attended the talk, reflected on the findings.

“Decades ago, ankylosing spondylitis was largely considered a male disease as found in 80%-90% of cases. Later, with MRI, we started to diagnose patients earlier and learned that more females have the disease and that females have less structural damage in the spine than men. As such, male gender is a predictor for worse radiographic progression,” Dr. Rudwaleit said.

“The question is whether the female patients who are considered to have axSpA really have axSpA, or do they have other origins of their back pain?” he continued.

“Also, this study shows us that females report a wider spectrum of symptoms than males. For example, headache, general discomfort, and overall, a broader spectrum of symptoms than men. This might have contributed to the fact that, previously, diagnoses of axSpA might have been made later in females than males.”

Large study across SpA phenotypes and disease-scoring methods

A total of 4,185 patients from 24 countries participated, with 65% having axSpA, 10% pSpA, and 25% PsA. Females totaled 38.8% of patients across all three types of spondyloarthritis. The researchers drew the data from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS)-perSpA study.

The researchers looked for associations between gender and disease activity as measured by ASDAS and BASDAI, C-reactive protein (CRP), physical function with the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), overall health with the ASAS Health Index (ASAS HI), and European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) outcomes.

In axSpA, there was a split of 68% men vs. 32% women. The researchers observed certain factors that were more common among men: smoking (49% vs. 32%), HLA-B27 positivity (83% vs. 70%), and elevated CRP (75% vs. 66%). Women more often had enthesitis (45% vs. 39%) and fibromyalgia (17% vs. 3%).

In pSpA, the gender split was approximately equal at 47% men and 53% women. But compared with women, men had more inflammatory back pain (62% vs. 50%), HLA-B27 positivity (70% vs. 54%), and elevated CRP (75% vs. 66%). Women more frequently had inflammatory bowel disease (IBD, 8% vs. 3%) and fibromyalgia (18% vs. 3%).

An approximately equal gender split was also found with PsA (48.5% men vs. 51.5% women). Men more frequently reported ever drinking alcohol than did women (63% vs. 26%), whereas women had a greater family history of both spondyloarthritis (41% vs. 32%) and psoriasis (41% vs. 31%). Women also more often reported enthesitis (49% vs. 42%) and fibromyalgia (19% vs. 3%) than men.

“These data strongly suggest that female patients showed significantly more fibromyalgia across all disease subtypes, and the magnitude of the difference with men is notable,” Dr. Benavent said.”Fibromyalgia is associated with pain and worse patient-reported outcomes, which may bias outcomes with disease activity scores.”

When the researchers analyzed outcomes by the different scores and indices for each disease subtype, they found that females had worse scores for most indices (ASDAS, BASDAI, patient’s global assessment (PtGA), BASFI, ASAS HI, and EQ-5D). “However, for CRP, men presented worse scores across axSpA and pSpA, and no differences were found with women in PsA,” Dr. Benavent added.

Although there are differences between the genders according to the scores, these differences may be confounded and this will affect the score outcome: for example, confounding by fibromyalgia in women, he explained.

To avoid the confounding effect, multivariable regression models were used, including the dependent variable as the explored outcome: for example, with BASDAI or ASDAS serving as the dependent variable and gender as the main independent variable, along with adjustments for potential confounders. When the influence of gender on BASDAI was considered, Dr. Benavent and colleagues found that being female increased all scores across the spectrum: axSpA (0.39 units; 95%  confidence interval, 0.2-0.58), pSpA (1.22 units; 95%  CI, 0.77-1.69), and PsA (0.88 units; 95%  CI, 0.59-1.19). When the influence of gender on ASDAS was considered, the researchers found that being female had no effect on axSpA (0.02 units; 95%  CI, –0.07 to 0.11), but did for pSpA (0.36 units; 95%  CI, 0.15-0.58) and PsA (0.25 units; 95%  CI, 0.12-0.38).

“ASDAS is better than BASDAI because it is similar in males and females, but this only holds true in axSpA, not in pSpA or PsA,” Dr. Benavent concluded.

Dr. Benavent declared serving on speakers bureaus for Janssen, Galapagos, and AbbVie, and receiving grant or research support from Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Rudwaleit declared financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, and Lilly.

Lots of things can disrupt your gut health over the years. A high-sugar diet, stress, antibiotics – all are linked to bad changes in the gut microbiome, the microbes that live in your intestinal tract. And this can raise the risk of diseases.

But what if you could erase all that damage, restoring your gut to a time when you were younger and healthier?

It could be possible, scientists say, by having people take a sample of their own stool when they are young to be put back into their colons when they are older.

While the science to back this up isn’t quite there yet, some researchers are saying we shouldn’t wait. They are calling on existing stool banks to let people start banking their stool now, so it’s there for them to use if the science becomes available.

But how would that work?

First, you’d go to a stool bank and provide a fresh sample of your poop, which would be screened for diseases, washed, processed, and deposited into a long-term storage facility.

Then, down the road, if you get a condition such as inflammatory bowel disease, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes – or if you have a procedure that wipes out your microbiome, like a course of antibiotics or chemotherapy – doctors could use your preserved stool to “re-colonize” your gut, restoring it to its earlier, healthier state, said Scott Weiss, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a coauthor of a recent paper on the topic. They would do that using fecal microbiota transplantation, or FMT.

Timing is everything. You’d want a sample from when you’re healthy – say, between the ages of 18 and 35, or before a chronic condition is likely, said Dr. Weiss. But if you’re still healthy into your late 30s, 40s, or even 50s, providing a sample then could still benefit you later in life.

If we could pull off a banking system like this, it could have the potential to treat autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease – or even reverse the effects of aging. How can we make this happen?
 

Stool banks of today

While stool banks do exist today, the samples inside are destined not for the original donors but rather for sick patients hoping to treat an illness. Using FMT, doctors transfer the fecal material to the patient’s colon, restoring helpful gut microbiota.

Some research shows FMT may help treat inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. Animal studies suggest it could help treat obesity, lengthen lifespan, and reverse some effects of aging, such as age-related decline in brain function. Other clinical trials are looking into its potential as a cancer treatment, said Dr. Weiss.

But outside the lab, FMT is mainly used for one purpose: to treat Clostridioides difficile infection. It works even better than antibiotics, research shows.

But first you need to find a healthy donor, and that’s harder than you might think.
 

Finding healthy stool samples

Banking our bodily substances is nothing new. Blood banks, for example, are common throughout the United States, and cord blood banking – preserving blood from a baby’s umbilical cord to aid possible future medical needs of the child – is becoming more popular. Sperm donors are highly sought after, and doctors regularly transplant kidneys and bone marrow to patients in need.

So why are we so particular about poop?

Part of the reason may be because feces (like blood, for that matter) can harbor disease – which is why it’s so important to find healthy stool donors. Problem is, this can be surprisingly hard to do.

To donate fecal matter, people must go through a rigorous screening process, said Majdi Osman, MD, chief medical officer for OpenBiome, a nonprofit microbiome research organization.

Until recently, OpenBiome operated a stool donation program, though it has since shifted its focus to research. Potential donors were screened for diseases and mental health conditions, pathogens, and antibiotic resistance. The pass rate was less than 3%.

“We take a very cautious approach because the association between diseases and the microbiome is still being understood,” Dr. Osman said.

FMT also carries risks – though so far, they seem mild. Side effects include mild diarrhea, nausea, belly pain, and fatigue. (The reason? Even the healthiest donor stool may not mix perfectly with your own.)

That’s where the idea of using your own stool comes in, said Yang-Yu Liu, PhD, a Harvard researcher who studies the microbiome and the lead author of the paper mentioned above. It’s not just more appealing but may also be a better “match” for your body.
 

Should you bank your stool?

While the researchers say we have reason to be optimistic about the future, it’s important to remember that many challenges remain. FMT is early in development, and there’s a lot about the microbiome we still don’t know.

There’s no guarantee, for example, that restoring a person’s microbiome to its formerly disease-free state will keep diseases at bay forever, said Dr. Weiss. If your genes raise your odds of having Crohn’s, for instance, it’s possible the disease could come back.

We also don’t know how long stool samples can be preserved, said Dr. Liu. Stool banks currently store fecal matter for 1 or 2 years, not decades. To protect the proteins and DNA structures for that long, samples would likely need to be stashed at the liquid nitrogen storage temperature of –196° C. (Currently, samples are stored at about –80° C.) Even then, testing would be needed to confirm if the fragile microorganisms in the stool can survive.

This raises another question: Who’s going to regulate all this?

The FDA regulates the use of FMT as a drug for the treatment of C. diff, but as Dr. Liu pointed out, many gastroenterologists consider the gut microbiota an organ. In that case, human fecal matter could be regulated the same way blood, bone, or even egg cells are.

Cord blood banking may be a helpful model, Dr. Liu said.

“We don’t have to start from scratch.”

Then there’s the question of cost. Cord blood banks could be a point of reference for that too, the researchers say. They charge about $1,500 to $2,820 for the first collection and processing, plus a yearly storage fee of $185 to $370.

Despite the unknowns, one thing is for sure: The interest in fecal banking is real – and growing. At least one microbiome firm, Cordlife Group Limited, based in Singapore, announced that it has started to allow people to bank their stool for future use.

“More people should talk about it and think about it,” said Dr. Liu.

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

Lots of things can disrupt your gut health over the years. A high-sugar diet, stress, antibiotics – all are linked to bad changes in the gut microbiome, the microbes that live in your intestinal tract. And this can raise the risk of diseases.

But what if you could erase all that damage, restoring your gut to a time when you were younger and healthier?

It could be possible, scientists say, by having people take a sample of their own stool when they are young to be put back into their colons when they are older.

While the science to back this up isn’t quite there yet, some researchers are saying we shouldn’t wait. They are calling on existing stool banks to let people start banking their stool now, so it’s there for them to use if the science becomes available.

But how would that work?

First, you’d go to a stool bank and provide a fresh sample of your poop, which would be screened for diseases, washed, processed, and deposited into a long-term storage facility.

Then, down the road, if you get a condition such as inflammatory bowel disease, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes – or if you have a procedure that wipes out your microbiome, like a course of antibiotics or chemotherapy – doctors could use your preserved stool to “re-colonize” your gut, restoring it to its earlier, healthier state, said Scott Weiss, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a coauthor of a recent paper on the topic. They would do that using fecal microbiota transplantation, or FMT.

Timing is everything. You’d want a sample from when you’re healthy – say, between the ages of 18 and 35, or before a chronic condition is likely, said Dr. Weiss. But if you’re still healthy into your late 30s, 40s, or even 50s, providing a sample then could still benefit you later in life.

If we could pull off a banking system like this, it could have the potential to treat autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease – or even reverse the effects of aging. How can we make this happen?
 

Stool banks of today

While stool banks do exist today, the samples inside are destined not for the original donors but rather for sick patients hoping to treat an illness. Using FMT, doctors transfer the fecal material to the patient’s colon, restoring helpful gut microbiota.

Some research shows FMT may help treat inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. Animal studies suggest it could help treat obesity, lengthen lifespan, and reverse some effects of aging, such as age-related decline in brain function. Other clinical trials are looking into its potential as a cancer treatment, said Dr. Weiss.

But outside the lab, FMT is mainly used for one purpose: to treat Clostridioides difficile infection. It works even better than antibiotics, research shows.

But first you need to find a healthy donor, and that’s harder than you might think.
 

Finding healthy stool samples

Banking our bodily substances is nothing new. Blood banks, for example, are common throughout the United States, and cord blood banking – preserving blood from a baby’s umbilical cord to aid possible future medical needs of the child – is becoming more popular. Sperm donors are highly sought after, and doctors regularly transplant kidneys and bone marrow to patients in need.

So why are we so particular about poop?

Part of the reason may be because feces (like blood, for that matter) can harbor disease – which is why it’s so important to find healthy stool donors. Problem is, this can be surprisingly hard to do.

To donate fecal matter, people must go through a rigorous screening process, said Majdi Osman, MD, chief medical officer for OpenBiome, a nonprofit microbiome research organization.

Until recently, OpenBiome operated a stool donation program, though it has since shifted its focus to research. Potential donors were screened for diseases and mental health conditions, pathogens, and antibiotic resistance. The pass rate was less than 3%.

“We take a very cautious approach because the association between diseases and the microbiome is still being understood,” Dr. Osman said.

FMT also carries risks – though so far, they seem mild. Side effects include mild diarrhea, nausea, belly pain, and fatigue. (The reason? Even the healthiest donor stool may not mix perfectly with your own.)

That’s where the idea of using your own stool comes in, said Yang-Yu Liu, PhD, a Harvard researcher who studies the microbiome and the lead author of the paper mentioned above. It’s not just more appealing but may also be a better “match” for your body.
 

Should you bank your stool?

While the researchers say we have reason to be optimistic about the future, it’s important to remember that many challenges remain. FMT is early in development, and there’s a lot about the microbiome we still don’t know.

There’s no guarantee, for example, that restoring a person’s microbiome to its formerly disease-free state will keep diseases at bay forever, said Dr. Weiss. If your genes raise your odds of having Crohn’s, for instance, it’s possible the disease could come back.

We also don’t know how long stool samples can be preserved, said Dr. Liu. Stool banks currently store fecal matter for 1 or 2 years, not decades. To protect the proteins and DNA structures for that long, samples would likely need to be stashed at the liquid nitrogen storage temperature of –196° C. (Currently, samples are stored at about –80° C.) Even then, testing would be needed to confirm if the fragile microorganisms in the stool can survive.

This raises another question: Who’s going to regulate all this?

The FDA regulates the use of FMT as a drug for the treatment of C. diff, but as Dr. Liu pointed out, many gastroenterologists consider the gut microbiota an organ. In that case, human fecal matter could be regulated the same way blood, bone, or even egg cells are.

Cord blood banking may be a helpful model, Dr. Liu said.

“We don’t have to start from scratch.”

Then there’s the question of cost. Cord blood banks could be a point of reference for that too, the researchers say. They charge about $1,500 to $2,820 for the first collection and processing, plus a yearly storage fee of $185 to $370.

Despite the unknowns, one thing is for sure: The interest in fecal banking is real – and growing. At least one microbiome firm, Cordlife Group Limited, based in Singapore, announced that it has started to allow people to bank their stool for future use.

“More people should talk about it and think about it,” said Dr. Liu.

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

Lots of things can disrupt your gut health over the years. A high-sugar diet, stress, antibiotics – all are linked to bad changes in the gut microbiome, the microbes that live in your intestinal tract. And this can raise the risk of diseases.

But what if you could erase all that damage, restoring your gut to a time when you were younger and healthier?

It could be possible, scientists say, by having people take a sample of their own stool when they are young to be put back into their colons when they are older.

While the science to back this up isn’t quite there yet, some researchers are saying we shouldn’t wait. They are calling on existing stool banks to let people start banking their stool now, so it’s there for them to use if the science becomes available.

But how would that work?

First, you’d go to a stool bank and provide a fresh sample of your poop, which would be screened for diseases, washed, processed, and deposited into a long-term storage facility.

Then, down the road, if you get a condition such as inflammatory bowel disease, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes – or if you have a procedure that wipes out your microbiome, like a course of antibiotics or chemotherapy – doctors could use your preserved stool to “re-colonize” your gut, restoring it to its earlier, healthier state, said Scott Weiss, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a coauthor of a recent paper on the topic. They would do that using fecal microbiota transplantation, or FMT.

Timing is everything. You’d want a sample from when you’re healthy – say, between the ages of 18 and 35, or before a chronic condition is likely, said Dr. Weiss. But if you’re still healthy into your late 30s, 40s, or even 50s, providing a sample then could still benefit you later in life.

If we could pull off a banking system like this, it could have the potential to treat autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, obesity, and heart disease – or even reverse the effects of aging. How can we make this happen?
 

Stool banks of today

While stool banks do exist today, the samples inside are destined not for the original donors but rather for sick patients hoping to treat an illness. Using FMT, doctors transfer the fecal material to the patient’s colon, restoring helpful gut microbiota.

Some research shows FMT may help treat inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis. Animal studies suggest it could help treat obesity, lengthen lifespan, and reverse some effects of aging, such as age-related decline in brain function. Other clinical trials are looking into its potential as a cancer treatment, said Dr. Weiss.

But outside the lab, FMT is mainly used for one purpose: to treat Clostridioides difficile infection. It works even better than antibiotics, research shows.

But first you need to find a healthy donor, and that’s harder than you might think.
 

Finding healthy stool samples

Banking our bodily substances is nothing new. Blood banks, for example, are common throughout the United States, and cord blood banking – preserving blood from a baby’s umbilical cord to aid possible future medical needs of the child – is becoming more popular. Sperm donors are highly sought after, and doctors regularly transplant kidneys and bone marrow to patients in need.

So why are we so particular about poop?

Part of the reason may be because feces (like blood, for that matter) can harbor disease – which is why it’s so important to find healthy stool donors. Problem is, this can be surprisingly hard to do.

To donate fecal matter, people must go through a rigorous screening process, said Majdi Osman, MD, chief medical officer for OpenBiome, a nonprofit microbiome research organization.

Until recently, OpenBiome operated a stool donation program, though it has since shifted its focus to research. Potential donors were screened for diseases and mental health conditions, pathogens, and antibiotic resistance. The pass rate was less than 3%.

“We take a very cautious approach because the association between diseases and the microbiome is still being understood,” Dr. Osman said.

FMT also carries risks – though so far, they seem mild. Side effects include mild diarrhea, nausea, belly pain, and fatigue. (The reason? Even the healthiest donor stool may not mix perfectly with your own.)

That’s where the idea of using your own stool comes in, said Yang-Yu Liu, PhD, a Harvard researcher who studies the microbiome and the lead author of the paper mentioned above. It’s not just more appealing but may also be a better “match” for your body.
 

Should you bank your stool?

While the researchers say we have reason to be optimistic about the future, it’s important to remember that many challenges remain. FMT is early in development, and there’s a lot about the microbiome we still don’t know.

There’s no guarantee, for example, that restoring a person’s microbiome to its formerly disease-free state will keep diseases at bay forever, said Dr. Weiss. If your genes raise your odds of having Crohn’s, for instance, it’s possible the disease could come back.

We also don’t know how long stool samples can be preserved, said Dr. Liu. Stool banks currently store fecal matter for 1 or 2 years, not decades. To protect the proteins and DNA structures for that long, samples would likely need to be stashed at the liquid nitrogen storage temperature of –196° C. (Currently, samples are stored at about –80° C.) Even then, testing would be needed to confirm if the fragile microorganisms in the stool can survive.

This raises another question: Who’s going to regulate all this?

The FDA regulates the use of FMT as a drug for the treatment of C. diff, but as Dr. Liu pointed out, many gastroenterologists consider the gut microbiota an organ. In that case, human fecal matter could be regulated the same way blood, bone, or even egg cells are.

Cord blood banking may be a helpful model, Dr. Liu said.

“We don’t have to start from scratch.”

Then there’s the question of cost. Cord blood banks could be a point of reference for that too, the researchers say. They charge about $1,500 to $2,820 for the first collection and processing, plus a yearly storage fee of $185 to $370.

Despite the unknowns, one thing is for sure: The interest in fecal banking is real – and growing. At least one microbiome firm, Cordlife Group Limited, based in Singapore, announced that it has started to allow people to bank their stool for future use.

“More people should talk about it and think about it,” said Dr. Liu.

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

Omega-3 supplements did not reduce fractures during a median 5.3-year follow-up in the more than 25,000 generally healthy men and women (≥ age 50 and ≥ age 55, respectively) in the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The large randomized controlled trial tested whether omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease or cancer in a representative sample of midlife and older adults from 50 U.S. states – which they did not. In a further analysis of VITAL, vitamin D supplements (cholecalciferol, 2,000 IU/day) did not lower the risk of incident total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with placebo.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

Now this new analysis shows that omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1 g/day of fish oil) did not reduce the risk of such fractures in the VITAL population either. Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, presented the latest findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“In this, the largest randomized controlled trial in the world, we did not find an effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on fractures,” Dr. LeBoff, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The current analysis did “unexpectedly” show that among participants who received the omega-3 fatty acid supplements, there was an increase in fractures in men, and fracture risk was higher in people with a normal or low body mass index and lower in people with higher BMI.

However, these subgroup findings need to be interpreted with caution and may be caused by chance, Dr. LeBoff warned. The researchers will be investigating these findings in further analyses.
 

Should patients take omega-3 supplements or not?

Asked whether, in the meantime, patients should start or keep taking fish oil supplements for possible health benefits, she noted that certain individuals might benefit.

For example, in VITAL, participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week and received omega-3 fatty acid supplements had a decrease in the combined cardiovascular endpoint, and Black participants who took fish oil supplements had a substantially reduced risk of the outcome, regardless of fish intake.

“I think everybody needs to review [the study findings] with clinicians and make a decision in terms of what would be best for them,” she said.

Session comoderator Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, commented that “many people take omega-3 because they think it will help” knee, hip, or other joint pain.

Perhaps men are more prone to joint pain because of osteoarthritis and the supplements lessen the pain, so these men became more physically active and more prone to fractures, she speculated.

The current study shows that, “so far, we haven’t been able to demonstrate a reduced rate of fractures with fish oil supplements in clinical randomized trials” conducted in relatively healthy and not the oldest patients, she summarized. “We’re not talking about 80-year-olds.”

In this “well-conducted study, they were not able to see any difference” with omega-3 fatty acid supplements versus placebo, but apparently, there are no harms associated with taking these supplements, she said.

To patients who ask her about such supplements, Dr. Langdahl advised: “Try it out for 3 months. If it really helps you, if it takes away your joint pain or whatever, then that might work for you. But then remember to stop again because it might just be a temporary effect.”
 

Could fish oil supplements protect against fractures?

An estimated 22% of U.S. adults aged 60 and older take omega-3 fatty acid supplements, Dr. LeBoff noted.

Preclinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce bone resorption and have anti-inflammatory effects, but observational studies have reported conflicting findings.

The researchers conducted this ancillary study of VITAL to fill these knowledge gaps.

VITAL enrolled a national sample of 25,871 U.S. men and women, including 5,106 Black participants, with a mean age of 67 and a mean BMI of 28 kg/m2.

Importantly, participants were not recruited by low bone density, fractures, or vitamin D deficiency. Prior to entry, participants were required to stop taking omega-3 supplements and limit nonstudy vitamin D and calcium supplements.

The omega-3 fatty acid supplements used in the study contained eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in a 1.2:1 ratio.

VITAL had a 2x2 factorial design whereby 6,463 participants were randomized to receive the omega-3 fatty acid supplement and 6,474 were randomized to placebo. (Remaining participants were randomized to receive vitamin D or placebo.)

Participants in the omega-3 fatty acid and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. For example, about half (50.5%) were women, and on average, they ate 1.1 servings of dark-meat fish (such as salmon) per week.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and each year.

Plasma omega-3 levels were measured at baseline and, in 1,583 participants, at 1 year of follow-up. The mean omega-3 index rose 54.7% in the omega-3 fatty acid group and changed less than 2% in the placebo group at 1 year.

Study pill adherence was 87.0% at 2 years and 85.7% at 5 years.

Fractures were self-reported on annual questionnaires and centrally adjudicated in medical record review.
 

No clinically meaningful effect of omega-3 fatty acids on fractures

During a median 5.3-year follow-up, researchers adjudicated 2,133 total fractures and confirmed 1,991 fractures (93%) in 1551 participants.

Incidences of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were similar in both groups.

Compared with placebo, omega-3 fatty acid supplements had no significant effect on risk of total fractures (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12), or hip fractures (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.30), all adjusted for age, sex, and race.

The “confidence intervals were narrow, likely excluding a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. LeBoff noted.

Among men, those who received fish oil supplements had a greater risk of fracture than those who received placebo (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51), but this result “was not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing,” Dr. LeBoff cautioned.

In the overall population, participants with a BMI less than 25 who received fish oil versus placebo had an increased risk of fracture, and those with a BMI of at least 30 who received fish oil versus placebo had a decreased risk of fracture, but the limits of the confidence intervals crossed 1.00.

After excluding digit, skull, and pathologic fractures, there was no significant reduction in total fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), or hip fractures (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33), with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

Similarly, there was no significant reduction in risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical spine fractures) or wrist fractures with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

VITAL only studied one dose of omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and results may not be generalizable to younger adults, or older adults living in residential communities, Dr. LeBoff noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. VITAL was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. LeBoff and Dr. Langdahl have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omega-3 supplements did not reduce fractures during a median 5.3-year follow-up in the more than 25,000 generally healthy men and women (≥ age 50 and ≥ age 55, respectively) in the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The large randomized controlled trial tested whether omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease or cancer in a representative sample of midlife and older adults from 50 U.S. states – which they did not. In a further analysis of VITAL, vitamin D supplements (cholecalciferol, 2,000 IU/day) did not lower the risk of incident total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with placebo.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

Now this new analysis shows that omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1 g/day of fish oil) did not reduce the risk of such fractures in the VITAL population either. Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, presented the latest findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“In this, the largest randomized controlled trial in the world, we did not find an effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on fractures,” Dr. LeBoff, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The current analysis did “unexpectedly” show that among participants who received the omega-3 fatty acid supplements, there was an increase in fractures in men, and fracture risk was higher in people with a normal or low body mass index and lower in people with higher BMI.

However, these subgroup findings need to be interpreted with caution and may be caused by chance, Dr. LeBoff warned. The researchers will be investigating these findings in further analyses.
 

Should patients take omega-3 supplements or not?

Asked whether, in the meantime, patients should start or keep taking fish oil supplements for possible health benefits, she noted that certain individuals might benefit.

For example, in VITAL, participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week and received omega-3 fatty acid supplements had a decrease in the combined cardiovascular endpoint, and Black participants who took fish oil supplements had a substantially reduced risk of the outcome, regardless of fish intake.

“I think everybody needs to review [the study findings] with clinicians and make a decision in terms of what would be best for them,” she said.

Session comoderator Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, commented that “many people take omega-3 because they think it will help” knee, hip, or other joint pain.

Perhaps men are more prone to joint pain because of osteoarthritis and the supplements lessen the pain, so these men became more physically active and more prone to fractures, she speculated.

The current study shows that, “so far, we haven’t been able to demonstrate a reduced rate of fractures with fish oil supplements in clinical randomized trials” conducted in relatively healthy and not the oldest patients, she summarized. “We’re not talking about 80-year-olds.”

In this “well-conducted study, they were not able to see any difference” with omega-3 fatty acid supplements versus placebo, but apparently, there are no harms associated with taking these supplements, she said.

To patients who ask her about such supplements, Dr. Langdahl advised: “Try it out for 3 months. If it really helps you, if it takes away your joint pain or whatever, then that might work for you. But then remember to stop again because it might just be a temporary effect.”
 

Could fish oil supplements protect against fractures?

An estimated 22% of U.S. adults aged 60 and older take omega-3 fatty acid supplements, Dr. LeBoff noted.

Preclinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce bone resorption and have anti-inflammatory effects, but observational studies have reported conflicting findings.

The researchers conducted this ancillary study of VITAL to fill these knowledge gaps.

VITAL enrolled a national sample of 25,871 U.S. men and women, including 5,106 Black participants, with a mean age of 67 and a mean BMI of 28 kg/m2.

Importantly, participants were not recruited by low bone density, fractures, or vitamin D deficiency. Prior to entry, participants were required to stop taking omega-3 supplements and limit nonstudy vitamin D and calcium supplements.

The omega-3 fatty acid supplements used in the study contained eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in a 1.2:1 ratio.

VITAL had a 2x2 factorial design whereby 6,463 participants were randomized to receive the omega-3 fatty acid supplement and 6,474 were randomized to placebo. (Remaining participants were randomized to receive vitamin D or placebo.)

Participants in the omega-3 fatty acid and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. For example, about half (50.5%) were women, and on average, they ate 1.1 servings of dark-meat fish (such as salmon) per week.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and each year.

Plasma omega-3 levels were measured at baseline and, in 1,583 participants, at 1 year of follow-up. The mean omega-3 index rose 54.7% in the omega-3 fatty acid group and changed less than 2% in the placebo group at 1 year.

Study pill adherence was 87.0% at 2 years and 85.7% at 5 years.

Fractures were self-reported on annual questionnaires and centrally adjudicated in medical record review.
 

No clinically meaningful effect of omega-3 fatty acids on fractures

During a median 5.3-year follow-up, researchers adjudicated 2,133 total fractures and confirmed 1,991 fractures (93%) in 1551 participants.

Incidences of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were similar in both groups.

Compared with placebo, omega-3 fatty acid supplements had no significant effect on risk of total fractures (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12), or hip fractures (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.30), all adjusted for age, sex, and race.

The “confidence intervals were narrow, likely excluding a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. LeBoff noted.

Among men, those who received fish oil supplements had a greater risk of fracture than those who received placebo (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51), but this result “was not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing,” Dr. LeBoff cautioned.

In the overall population, participants with a BMI less than 25 who received fish oil versus placebo had an increased risk of fracture, and those with a BMI of at least 30 who received fish oil versus placebo had a decreased risk of fracture, but the limits of the confidence intervals crossed 1.00.

After excluding digit, skull, and pathologic fractures, there was no significant reduction in total fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), or hip fractures (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33), with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

Similarly, there was no significant reduction in risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical spine fractures) or wrist fractures with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

VITAL only studied one dose of omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and results may not be generalizable to younger adults, or older adults living in residential communities, Dr. LeBoff noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. VITAL was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. LeBoff and Dr. Langdahl have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omega-3 supplements did not reduce fractures during a median 5.3-year follow-up in the more than 25,000 generally healthy men and women (≥ age 50 and ≥ age 55, respectively) in the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The large randomized controlled trial tested whether omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease or cancer in a representative sample of midlife and older adults from 50 U.S. states – which they did not. In a further analysis of VITAL, vitamin D supplements (cholecalciferol, 2,000 IU/day) did not lower the risk of incident total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with placebo.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

Now this new analysis shows that omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1 g/day of fish oil) did not reduce the risk of such fractures in the VITAL population either. Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, presented the latest findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“In this, the largest randomized controlled trial in the world, we did not find an effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on fractures,” Dr. LeBoff, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The current analysis did “unexpectedly” show that among participants who received the omega-3 fatty acid supplements, there was an increase in fractures in men, and fracture risk was higher in people with a normal or low body mass index and lower in people with higher BMI.

However, these subgroup findings need to be interpreted with caution and may be caused by chance, Dr. LeBoff warned. The researchers will be investigating these findings in further analyses.
 

Should patients take omega-3 supplements or not?

Asked whether, in the meantime, patients should start or keep taking fish oil supplements for possible health benefits, she noted that certain individuals might benefit.

For example, in VITAL, participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week and received omega-3 fatty acid supplements had a decrease in the combined cardiovascular endpoint, and Black participants who took fish oil supplements had a substantially reduced risk of the outcome, regardless of fish intake.

“I think everybody needs to review [the study findings] with clinicians and make a decision in terms of what would be best for them,” she said.

Session comoderator Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, commented that “many people take omega-3 because they think it will help” knee, hip, or other joint pain.

Perhaps men are more prone to joint pain because of osteoarthritis and the supplements lessen the pain, so these men became more physically active and more prone to fractures, she speculated.

The current study shows that, “so far, we haven’t been able to demonstrate a reduced rate of fractures with fish oil supplements in clinical randomized trials” conducted in relatively healthy and not the oldest patients, she summarized. “We’re not talking about 80-year-olds.”

In this “well-conducted study, they were not able to see any difference” with omega-3 fatty acid supplements versus placebo, but apparently, there are no harms associated with taking these supplements, she said.

To patients who ask her about such supplements, Dr. Langdahl advised: “Try it out for 3 months. If it really helps you, if it takes away your joint pain or whatever, then that might work for you. But then remember to stop again because it might just be a temporary effect.”
 

Could fish oil supplements protect against fractures?

An estimated 22% of U.S. adults aged 60 and older take omega-3 fatty acid supplements, Dr. LeBoff noted.

Preclinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce bone resorption and have anti-inflammatory effects, but observational studies have reported conflicting findings.

The researchers conducted this ancillary study of VITAL to fill these knowledge gaps.

VITAL enrolled a national sample of 25,871 U.S. men and women, including 5,106 Black participants, with a mean age of 67 and a mean BMI of 28 kg/m2.

Importantly, participants were not recruited by low bone density, fractures, or vitamin D deficiency. Prior to entry, participants were required to stop taking omega-3 supplements and limit nonstudy vitamin D and calcium supplements.

The omega-3 fatty acid supplements used in the study contained eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in a 1.2:1 ratio.

VITAL had a 2x2 factorial design whereby 6,463 participants were randomized to receive the omega-3 fatty acid supplement and 6,474 were randomized to placebo. (Remaining participants were randomized to receive vitamin D or placebo.)

Participants in the omega-3 fatty acid and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. For example, about half (50.5%) were women, and on average, they ate 1.1 servings of dark-meat fish (such as salmon) per week.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and each year.

Plasma omega-3 levels were measured at baseline and, in 1,583 participants, at 1 year of follow-up. The mean omega-3 index rose 54.7% in the omega-3 fatty acid group and changed less than 2% in the placebo group at 1 year.

Study pill adherence was 87.0% at 2 years and 85.7% at 5 years.

Fractures were self-reported on annual questionnaires and centrally adjudicated in medical record review.
 

No clinically meaningful effect of omega-3 fatty acids on fractures

During a median 5.3-year follow-up, researchers adjudicated 2,133 total fractures and confirmed 1,991 fractures (93%) in 1551 participants.

Incidences of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were similar in both groups.

Compared with placebo, omega-3 fatty acid supplements had no significant effect on risk of total fractures (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12), or hip fractures (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.30), all adjusted for age, sex, and race.

The “confidence intervals were narrow, likely excluding a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. LeBoff noted.

Among men, those who received fish oil supplements had a greater risk of fracture than those who received placebo (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51), but this result “was not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing,” Dr. LeBoff cautioned.

In the overall population, participants with a BMI less than 25 who received fish oil versus placebo had an increased risk of fracture, and those with a BMI of at least 30 who received fish oil versus placebo had a decreased risk of fracture, but the limits of the confidence intervals crossed 1.00.

After excluding digit, skull, and pathologic fractures, there was no significant reduction in total fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), or hip fractures (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33), with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

Similarly, there was no significant reduction in risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical spine fractures) or wrist fractures with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

VITAL only studied one dose of omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and results may not be generalizable to younger adults, or older adults living in residential communities, Dr. LeBoff noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. VITAL was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. LeBoff and Dr. Langdahl have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Men with early rheumatoid arthritis who had previously never been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) achieved remission significantly more often than women when given the interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), according to new findings published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Researchers also found that men had higher rates of remission than women when treated with certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), abatacept (Orencia), or conventional synthetic DMARDs, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The findings are based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the randomized, controlled, phase 4 NORD-STAR trial performed across Scandinavia, Iceland, and the Netherlands that is believed to be the first study on treatment-naive patients to specifically analyze the interaction between sex and treatment using interaction terms. In the study, outcomes for men versus women were compared within each treatment group and also to the conventional treatment arm used as the reference group.

“Our findings could provide guidance about the optimal treatment choice for DMARD-naive men and women with early RA,” said first author Kristina Lend, MSc, research assistant at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and PhD student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Researchers enrolled 812 patients between 2012 and 2018 and randomly assigned them to receive:

• Conventional treatment involving methotrexate plus prednisolone tapered from 20 mg per day to 5 mg per day within 9 weeks or methotrexate plus sulfasalazine (2 g per day), hydroxychloroquine (35 mg/kg per week or 200 mg per day), and intra-articular glucocorticoids in the swollen joint (maximally four joints and 80 mg per visit);
• the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor certolizumab pegol with methotrexate;
• the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept with methotrexate; or
• tocilizumab with methotrexate.

All of the patients were newly diagnosed, with symptoms for less than 24 months, and they had never taken a DMARD. Researchers used the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) as the primary tool for assessing remission. Patients started oral methotrexate initially at 10-15 mg per week and escalated within 4 weeks to a target dose of 25 mg per week.

In all groups, men achieved remission after 24 weeks at higher rates than women: 55% compared with 50% in the conventional arm; 57% vs. 52% with certolizumab pegol; 65% vs. 51% with abatacept; and 61% vs. 40% with tocilizumab. But in most cases, the 95% confidence intervals overlapped for men and women, meaning the differences didn’t reach statistical significance.

However, in the tocilizumab group, the difference was significant.

Ms. Lend said it was interesting to see this difference with tocilizumab. The drug is known to reduce acute-phase reactants, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). But the CDAI doesn’t take CRP or other acute phase reactants into account. Both men and women taking tocilizumab had significant reductions in CRP, and yet men ultimately did much better on the drug according to the CDAI, as well as other scales, such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and Simplified Disease Activity Index.

Women in the conventional treatment arm actually achieved remission more often, at least in absolute numbers, than did women taking tocilizumab.

“It was surprising to see that men on tocilizumab treatment achieved higher remission rates than men in conventional treatment while women in tocilizumab treatment achieved lower remission rates than women in conventional treatment,” she said.

Several factors could account for the differences in remission, she said. Subjective components when assessing remission – such as tender joint counts and a patient’s own assessment of their disease activity – tend to be higher for women. Underlying biological mechanisms can play a role as well, with evidence suggesting that gonadal hormone concentrations modulate the immune system and affect pain signaling, influencing how the disease is experienced, she said.

Findings such as these could lead to a redrafting of treatment recommendations, Ms. Lend suggested.

“Conventional treatment is currently recommended over tocilizumab and other biologics for DMARD-naive men and women with early RA,” she said. “We do feel that the overall results of the NORD-STAR trial could lead to a reassessment of these recommendations, and that more personalized treatment decisions will become the standard.”

In an accompanying editorial, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egaz Moniz in Lisbon, and Elena Nikiphorou, MD, consultant rheumatologist at King’s College London, said the analysis was generally well-designed, although perhaps too small.

“The NORD-STAR trial, compared to other studies, comes the closest to answering the question at hand,” they wrote. “A fair conclusion is that (with the exception of tocilizumab) men and women respond similarly to biological DMARDs compared with conventional therapy. If true, this is reassuring news both to patients and clinicians.”

They cautioned that the study was “probably underpowered” to answer the question authoritatively.

“Despite this, the study provides useful insights into sex-driven responses to treatment,” they said. “Differences in methodological and analytical approaches will need to be considered in studies with similar intentions when interpreting the findings.”

Ruth Fritsch-Stork, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Sigmund Freud University in Vienna, who has studied sex and RA treatment in the Austrian BIOREG registry, said the findings are an important contribution to the literature.

“I think it is a very interesting paper, as little literature has been published about sex differences in RA patients regarding therapy,” she said. “And the little that is known is ambiguous. So this paper is a badly needed piece in the puzzle of treatment response in RA.”

She said she wondered how much these findings will be applicable to typical clinical scenarios, in which tocilizumab is usually at least a second-line therapy, after use of conventional synthetic DMARDs – and often after anti-TNF therapy as well. But this study population was DMARD naive.

“Also, the literature usually describes a better outcome in men for anti-TNF, which was not seen here,” she added.

“As the effect of tocilizumab seems to be greater in men not only in remission rates, but also in infection rates, I do believe an effect on the IL-6 signaling and immunological sequelae to be the underlying factor,” Dr. Fritsch-Stork said. “However, I agree with the authors that unknown, noninflammatory, sex-dependent effects on pain sensation might play a role.”

Even though the applicability of the study isn’t clear, she said, “it is important information for future investigations.”

Ms. Lend and Dr. Fritsch-Stork reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sepriano reported financial relationships with UCB, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Nikiphorou reported financial relationships with Pfizer, Gilead, Galapagos, Lilly, and Fresenius.

Men with early rheumatoid arthritis who had previously never been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) achieved remission significantly more often than women when given the interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), according to new findings published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Researchers also found that men had higher rates of remission than women when treated with certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), abatacept (Orencia), or conventional synthetic DMARDs, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The findings are based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the randomized, controlled, phase 4 NORD-STAR trial performed across Scandinavia, Iceland, and the Netherlands that is believed to be the first study on treatment-naive patients to specifically analyze the interaction between sex and treatment using interaction terms. In the study, outcomes for men versus women were compared within each treatment group and also to the conventional treatment arm used as the reference group.

“Our findings could provide guidance about the optimal treatment choice for DMARD-naive men and women with early RA,” said first author Kristina Lend, MSc, research assistant at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and PhD student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Researchers enrolled 812 patients between 2012 and 2018 and randomly assigned them to receive:

• Conventional treatment involving methotrexate plus prednisolone tapered from 20 mg per day to 5 mg per day within 9 weeks or methotrexate plus sulfasalazine (2 g per day), hydroxychloroquine (35 mg/kg per week or 200 mg per day), and intra-articular glucocorticoids in the swollen joint (maximally four joints and 80 mg per visit);
• the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor certolizumab pegol with methotrexate;
• the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept with methotrexate; or
• tocilizumab with methotrexate.

All of the patients were newly diagnosed, with symptoms for less than 24 months, and they had never taken a DMARD. Researchers used the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) as the primary tool for assessing remission. Patients started oral methotrexate initially at 10-15 mg per week and escalated within 4 weeks to a target dose of 25 mg per week.

In all groups, men achieved remission after 24 weeks at higher rates than women: 55% compared with 50% in the conventional arm; 57% vs. 52% with certolizumab pegol; 65% vs. 51% with abatacept; and 61% vs. 40% with tocilizumab. But in most cases, the 95% confidence intervals overlapped for men and women, meaning the differences didn’t reach statistical significance.

However, in the tocilizumab group, the difference was significant.

Ms. Lend said it was interesting to see this difference with tocilizumab. The drug is known to reduce acute-phase reactants, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). But the CDAI doesn’t take CRP or other acute phase reactants into account. Both men and women taking tocilizumab had significant reductions in CRP, and yet men ultimately did much better on the drug according to the CDAI, as well as other scales, such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and Simplified Disease Activity Index.

Women in the conventional treatment arm actually achieved remission more often, at least in absolute numbers, than did women taking tocilizumab.

“It was surprising to see that men on tocilizumab treatment achieved higher remission rates than men in conventional treatment while women in tocilizumab treatment achieved lower remission rates than women in conventional treatment,” she said.

Several factors could account for the differences in remission, she said. Subjective components when assessing remission – such as tender joint counts and a patient’s own assessment of their disease activity – tend to be higher for women. Underlying biological mechanisms can play a role as well, with evidence suggesting that gonadal hormone concentrations modulate the immune system and affect pain signaling, influencing how the disease is experienced, she said.

Findings such as these could lead to a redrafting of treatment recommendations, Ms. Lend suggested.

“Conventional treatment is currently recommended over tocilizumab and other biologics for DMARD-naive men and women with early RA,” she said. “We do feel that the overall results of the NORD-STAR trial could lead to a reassessment of these recommendations, and that more personalized treatment decisions will become the standard.”

In an accompanying editorial, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egaz Moniz in Lisbon, and Elena Nikiphorou, MD, consultant rheumatologist at King’s College London, said the analysis was generally well-designed, although perhaps too small.

“The NORD-STAR trial, compared to other studies, comes the closest to answering the question at hand,” they wrote. “A fair conclusion is that (with the exception of tocilizumab) men and women respond similarly to biological DMARDs compared with conventional therapy. If true, this is reassuring news both to patients and clinicians.”

They cautioned that the study was “probably underpowered” to answer the question authoritatively.

“Despite this, the study provides useful insights into sex-driven responses to treatment,” they said. “Differences in methodological and analytical approaches will need to be considered in studies with similar intentions when interpreting the findings.”

Ruth Fritsch-Stork, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Sigmund Freud University in Vienna, who has studied sex and RA treatment in the Austrian BIOREG registry, said the findings are an important contribution to the literature.

“I think it is a very interesting paper, as little literature has been published about sex differences in RA patients regarding therapy,” she said. “And the little that is known is ambiguous. So this paper is a badly needed piece in the puzzle of treatment response in RA.”

She said she wondered how much these findings will be applicable to typical clinical scenarios, in which tocilizumab is usually at least a second-line therapy, after use of conventional synthetic DMARDs – and often after anti-TNF therapy as well. But this study population was DMARD naive.

“Also, the literature usually describes a better outcome in men for anti-TNF, which was not seen here,” she added.

“As the effect of tocilizumab seems to be greater in men not only in remission rates, but also in infection rates, I do believe an effect on the IL-6 signaling and immunological sequelae to be the underlying factor,” Dr. Fritsch-Stork said. “However, I agree with the authors that unknown, noninflammatory, sex-dependent effects on pain sensation might play a role.”

Even though the applicability of the study isn’t clear, she said, “it is important information for future investigations.”

Ms. Lend and Dr. Fritsch-Stork reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sepriano reported financial relationships with UCB, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Nikiphorou reported financial relationships with Pfizer, Gilead, Galapagos, Lilly, and Fresenius.

Men with early rheumatoid arthritis who had previously never been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) achieved remission significantly more often than women when given the interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (Actemra), according to new findings published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

Researchers also found that men had higher rates of remission than women when treated with certolizumab pegol (Cimzia), abatacept (Orencia), or conventional synthetic DMARDs, but the differences were not statistically significant.

The findings are based on a post-hoc analysis of data from the randomized, controlled, phase 4 NORD-STAR trial performed across Scandinavia, Iceland, and the Netherlands that is believed to be the first study on treatment-naive patients to specifically analyze the interaction between sex and treatment using interaction terms. In the study, outcomes for men versus women were compared within each treatment group and also to the conventional treatment arm used as the reference group.

“Our findings could provide guidance about the optimal treatment choice for DMARD-naive men and women with early RA,” said first author Kristina Lend, MSc, research assistant at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and PhD student at Amsterdam University Medical Center.

Researchers enrolled 812 patients between 2012 and 2018 and randomly assigned them to receive:

• Conventional treatment involving methotrexate plus prednisolone tapered from 20 mg per day to 5 mg per day within 9 weeks or methotrexate plus sulfasalazine (2 g per day), hydroxychloroquine (35 mg/kg per week or 200 mg per day), and intra-articular glucocorticoids in the swollen joint (maximally four joints and 80 mg per visit);
• the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor certolizumab pegol with methotrexate;
• the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept with methotrexate; or
• tocilizumab with methotrexate.

All of the patients were newly diagnosed, with symptoms for less than 24 months, and they had never taken a DMARD. Researchers used the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) as the primary tool for assessing remission. Patients started oral methotrexate initially at 10-15 mg per week and escalated within 4 weeks to a target dose of 25 mg per week.

In all groups, men achieved remission after 24 weeks at higher rates than women: 55% compared with 50% in the conventional arm; 57% vs. 52% with certolizumab pegol; 65% vs. 51% with abatacept; and 61% vs. 40% with tocilizumab. But in most cases, the 95% confidence intervals overlapped for men and women, meaning the differences didn’t reach statistical significance.

However, in the tocilizumab group, the difference was significant.

Ms. Lend said it was interesting to see this difference with tocilizumab. The drug is known to reduce acute-phase reactants, such as C-reactive protein (CRP). But the CDAI doesn’t take CRP or other acute phase reactants into account. Both men and women taking tocilizumab had significant reductions in CRP, and yet men ultimately did much better on the drug according to the CDAI, as well as other scales, such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and Simplified Disease Activity Index.

Women in the conventional treatment arm actually achieved remission more often, at least in absolute numbers, than did women taking tocilizumab.

“It was surprising to see that men on tocilizumab treatment achieved higher remission rates than men in conventional treatment while women in tocilizumab treatment achieved lower remission rates than women in conventional treatment,” she said.

Several factors could account for the differences in remission, she said. Subjective components when assessing remission – such as tender joint counts and a patient’s own assessment of their disease activity – tend to be higher for women. Underlying biological mechanisms can play a role as well, with evidence suggesting that gonadal hormone concentrations modulate the immune system and affect pain signaling, influencing how the disease is experienced, she said.

Findings such as these could lead to a redrafting of treatment recommendations, Ms. Lend suggested.

“Conventional treatment is currently recommended over tocilizumab and other biologics for DMARD-naive men and women with early RA,” she said. “We do feel that the overall results of the NORD-STAR trial could lead to a reassessment of these recommendations, and that more personalized treatment decisions will become the standard.”

In an accompanying editorial, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Hospital Egaz Moniz in Lisbon, and Elena Nikiphorou, MD, consultant rheumatologist at King’s College London, said the analysis was generally well-designed, although perhaps too small.

“The NORD-STAR trial, compared to other studies, comes the closest to answering the question at hand,” they wrote. “A fair conclusion is that (with the exception of tocilizumab) men and women respond similarly to biological DMARDs compared with conventional therapy. If true, this is reassuring news both to patients and clinicians.”

They cautioned that the study was “probably underpowered” to answer the question authoritatively.

“Despite this, the study provides useful insights into sex-driven responses to treatment,” they said. “Differences in methodological and analytical approaches will need to be considered in studies with similar intentions when interpreting the findings.”

Ruth Fritsch-Stork, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology at Sigmund Freud University in Vienna, who has studied sex and RA treatment in the Austrian BIOREG registry, said the findings are an important contribution to the literature.

“I think it is a very interesting paper, as little literature has been published about sex differences in RA patients regarding therapy,” she said. “And the little that is known is ambiguous. So this paper is a badly needed piece in the puzzle of treatment response in RA.”

She said she wondered how much these findings will be applicable to typical clinical scenarios, in which tocilizumab is usually at least a second-line therapy, after use of conventional synthetic DMARDs – and often after anti-TNF therapy as well. But this study population was DMARD naive.

“Also, the literature usually describes a better outcome in men for anti-TNF, which was not seen here,” she added.

“As the effect of tocilizumab seems to be greater in men not only in remission rates, but also in infection rates, I do believe an effect on the IL-6 signaling and immunological sequelae to be the underlying factor,” Dr. Fritsch-Stork said. “However, I agree with the authors that unknown, noninflammatory, sex-dependent effects on pain sensation might play a role.”

Even though the applicability of the study isn’t clear, she said, “it is important information for future investigations.”

Ms. Lend and Dr. Fritsch-Stork reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Sepriano reported financial relationships with UCB, Novartis, and Lilly. Dr. Nikiphorou reported financial relationships with Pfizer, Gilead, Galapagos, Lilly, and Fresenius.

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

Treatment with the humanized monoclonal antibody litifilimab for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) led to greater improvements in joint manifestations than did placebo in an international phase 2 trial that reflects keen interest in targeting type 1 interferon and the innate immune system.

Litifilimab was associated with an approximately three-joint reduction in the number of swollen and tender joints, compared with placebo, over 24 weeks in the study, which was published  in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The study was the first part of the LILAC trial, a two-part, phase 2 study. The second part involved cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) with or without systemic manifestations. Treatment led to improvements in skin disease, as measured by Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index–Activity (CLASI-A) scores. It was published  in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The investigational drug targets blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2). The antigen is expressed solely on plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs), which accumulate in skin lesions and organs of patients with SLE. When the antibody binds to BDCA2, “the synthesis of a variety of cytokines is shut down – type 1 interferons, type 3 interferons, TNF [tumor necrosis factor], and [other cytokines and chemokines] made by the pDCs,” Richard A. Furie, MD, lead author of the article, said in an interview.

In a phase 1 trial involving patients with SLE and CLE, the drug’s biologic activity was shown by a dampened interferon signature in blood and modulated type 1 interferon-induced proteins in the skin, he and his coinvestigators noted.

Dr. Furie is chief of rheumatology at Northwell Health and professor of medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research at Northwell and at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York.
 

Impact on the joints

The primary analysis in the SLE trial involved 102 patients who had SLE, arthritis, and active skin disease. The patients received litifilimab 450 mg or placebo, administered subcutaneously, at weeks 0, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. The patients were required to have at least four tender joints and at least four swollen joints, and these active joints had to be those classically involved in lupus arthritis.

The mean (± standard deviation) baseline number of active joints was 19 ± 8.4 in the litifilimab group and 21.6 ± 8.5 in placebo group. From baseline to week 24, the least-squares mean (± standard deviation) change in the total number of active joints was –15.0 ± 1.2 with litifilimab and –11.6 ± 1.3 with placebo (mean difference, –3.4; 95% confidence interval, –6.7 to -0.2; P = .04).

Most of the secondary endpoints did not support the results of the primary analysis. However, improvement was seen in the SLE Responder Index (SRI-4) – a three-component global index that Dr. Furie and others developed in 2009 using data from the phase 2 SLE trial of belimumab (Benlysta).

The composite index, used in the phase 3 trial of belimumab, captures improvement in disease activity without a worsening of the condition overall or new significant disease activity in other domains. “It’s a dichotomous measure – either you’re a responder or not,” Dr. Furie said in the interview.

Response on the SRI-4 was defined as a reduction of at least 4 points from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K score (the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index), no new disease activity as measured by one score of A (severe) or more than one score of B (moderate) on the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) index, and no increase of 0.3 points or more on the Physician’s Global Assessment.

A total of 56% of the patients in the litifilimab group showed responses on the SRI-4 at week 24, compared with 29% in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-43.2). This is “a robust response” that is much greater than the effect size seen in the phase 3 trial of belimumab or in research on anifrolumab (Saphnelo). Both of those drugs are approved for SLE, Dr. Furie said. “We’ll need to see if it’s reproduced in phase 3.”

There’s “little question that litifilimab works for the skin,” Dr. Furie noted. In the second part of the LILAC study, which focused on CLE, litifilimab demonstrated efficacy, and the SLE trial lends more support. Among several secondary endpoints evaluating skin-related disease activity, a reduction of at least 7 points from baseline in the CLASI-A score (a clinically relevant threshold) occurred in 56% of the litifilimab group and 34% of the placebo group.

The trial was conducted at 55 centers in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States. The SLE part of the study began as a dose-ranging study aimed at evaluating cutaneous lupus activity, but owing to “slow enrollment and to allow an assessment of the effect of litifilimab on arthritis in SLE,” the protocol and primary endpoint were amended before the trial data were unblinded to evaluate only the 450-mg dose among participants with active arthritis and skin disease (at least one active skin lesion), the investigators explained.

Background therapy for SLE was allowed if the therapy was initiated at least 12 weeks before randomization and if dose levels were stable through the trial period. Glucocorticoids had to be tapered to ≤ 10 mg/day according to a specified regimen.

Making progress for lupus

Jane E. Salmon, MD, director of the Lupus and APS Center of Excellence and codirector of the Mary Kirkland Center for Lupus Research at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved in the research, said in an email that she is “cautiously optimistic, because in SLE, successful phase 2 trials too often are followed by unsuccessful phase 3 trials.”

Courtesy Hospital for Special Surgery

Blocking the production of type 1 interferon by pDCs implicated in SLE pathogenesis has the theoretical advantage of preserving type 1 interferon critical to protection from viruses, she noted. Herpes infections were reported among patients who received litifilimab, but rates were not increased, compared with placebo.

Diversity is an important priority in further research, Dr. Salmon said.

Daniel J. Wallace, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, similarly pointed out in an editorial that accompanied the SLE phase 2 trial that while Black patients make up one-third of the U.S. population with lupus, only about 10% of study participants whose race and ethnicity was reported were Black). (Race was not reported by sites in Europe.)

The results of the LILAC trials “encourage further exploration of interventions that affect upstream lupus inflammatory pathways in the innate immune system in lupus,” Dr. Wallace wrote. He noted that lupus has “lagged behind its rheumatic cousins,” such as rheumatoid arthritis and vasculitis, in drug development.

Developing endpoints and study designs for SLE trials has been challenging, at least partly because it is a multisystem disease, Dr. Furie said. “But we’re making progress.”

Anifrolumab, a type 1 interferon receptor monoclonal antibody that was approved for SLE in July 2021, “may have a broader effect on type 1 interferons,” he noted, while litifilimab “may have a broader effect on proinflammatory cytokines, at least those expressed by pDCs.”

Biogen, the sponsor of the LILAC trial, is currently enrolling patients in phase 3 studies – TOPAZ-1 and TOPAZ-2 – to evaluate litifilimab in SLE over a 52-week period. The company also plans to start a pivotal study of the drug in CLE later this year, according to a press release.

Six coauthors are employees of Biogen; five, including Dr. Furie, reported serving as a consultant to the company; one served on a data and safety monitoring board for Biogen; and Dr. Salmon owns stock in the company.

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

A new study provides yet more evidence that a significant subset of people who experience persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance following COVID-19 will meet diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Data from the prospective observational study of 42 patients with “post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS),” including persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance, suggest that a large proportion will meet strict diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, including the hallmark postexertional malaise (PEM). Still others may experience similar disability but lack duration and/or severity requirements for the diagnosis.

Moreover, disease severity and symptom burden were found similar in those with ME/CFS following COVID-19 and in a group of 19 age- and sex-matched individuals with ME/CFS that wasn’t associated with COVID-19.

“The major finding is that ME/CFS is indeed part of the spectrum of the post-COVID syndrome and very similar to the ME/CFS we know after other infectious triggers,” senior author Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, acting director of the Institute for Medical Immunology at the Charité University Medicine Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, told this news organization.

Importantly, from a clinical standpoint, both diminished hand-grip strength (HGS) and orthostatic intolerance were common across all patient groups, as were several laboratory values, Claudia Kedor, MD, and colleagues at Charité report in the paper, published online in Nature Communications.

Of the 42 with PCS, including persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance lasting at least 6 months, 19 met the rigorous Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) for ME/CFS, established in 2003, which require PEM, along with sleep dysfunction, significant persistent fatigue, pain, and several other symptoms from neurological/cognitive, autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune categories that persist for at least 6 months.

Of the 23 who did not meet the CCC criteria, 18 still experienced PEM but for less than the required 14 hours set by the authors based on recent data. The original CCC had suggested 24 hours as the PEM duration. Eight subjects met all the Canadian criteria except for the neurological/cognitive symptoms. None of the 42 had evidence of severe depression.

The previously widely used 1994 “Fukuda” criteria for ME/CFS are no longer recommended because they don’t require PEM, which is now considered a key symptom. The more recent 2015 Institute (now Academy) of Medicine criteria don’t define the length of PEM, the authors note in the paper.

Dr. Scheibenbogen said, “Post-COVID has a spectrum of syndromes and conditions. We see that a subset of patients have similar symptoms of ME/CFS but don’t fulfill the CCC, although they may meet less stringent criteria. We think this is of relevance for both diagnostic markers and development of therapy, because there may be different pathomechanisms between the subsets of post-COVID patients.”

She pointed to other studies from her group suggesting that inflammation is present early in post-COVID (not yet published), while in the subset that goes on to ME/CFS, autoantibodies or endothelial dysfunction play a more important role. «At the moment, it’s quite complex, and I don’t think in the end we will have just one pathomechanism. So I think we’ll need to develop various treatment strategies.”

Asked to comment on the new data, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and editor in chief of the Harvard Health Letter, told this news organization, “This paper adds to the evidence that an illness with symptoms that meet criteria for ME/CFS can follow COVID-19 in nearly half of those patients who have lingering symptoms. This can occur even in people who initially have only mild symptoms from COVID-19, although it is more likely to happen in the people who are sickest when they first get COVID-19. And those who meet criteria for ME/CFS were seriously impaired in their ability to function, [both] at work and at home.”

But, Dr. Komaroff also cautioned, “the study does not help in determining what fraction of all people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 go on to develop a condition like ME/CFS, nor how long that condition will last. It is crucial that we get answers to these questions, as the impact on the economy, the health care system, and the disability system could be substantial.”

He pointed to a recent report from the Brookings Institution (2022 Aug 24. “New data shows long Covid is keeping as many as 4 million people out of work” Katie Bach) “finding that “long COVID may be a major contributor to the shortage of job applicants plaguing many businesses.”
 

Biomarkers include hand-grip strength, orthostatic intolerance, lab measures

Hand-grip strength, as assessed by 10 repeat grips at maximum force and repeated after 60 minutes, were lower for all those meeting ME/CFS criteria, compared with the healthy controls. Hand-grip strength parameters were also positively correlated with laboratory hemoglobin measures in both PCS groups who did and didn’t meet the Canadian ME/CFS criteria.

A total of three patients with PCS who didn’t meet ME/CFS criteria and seven with PCS who met ME/CFS criteria had sitting blood pressures of greater than 140 mm Hg systolic and/or greater than 90 mm Hg diastolic. Five patients with PCS – four who met ME/CFS criteria and one who didn’t – fulfilled criteria for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Orthostatic hypotension was diagnosed in a total of seven with PCS, including one who did not meet ME/CFS criteria and the rest who did.

Among significant laboratory findings, mannose-binding lectin deficiency, which is associated with increased infection susceptibility and found in only about 6% of historical controls, was found more frequently in both of the PCS cohorts (17% of those with ME/CFS and 23% of those without) than it has been in the past among those with ME/CFS, compared with historical controls (15%).

There was only slight elevation in C-reactive protein, the most commonly measured marker of inflammation. However, another marker indicating inflammation within the last 3-4 months, interleukin 8 assessed in erythrocytes, was above normal in 37% with PCS and ME/CFS and in 48% with PCS who did not meet the ME/CFS criteria.

Elevated antinuclear antibodies, anti–thyroid peroxidase antibodies, vitamin D deficiencies, and folic acid deficiencies were all seen in small numbers of the PCS patients. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 1 levels were below the normal range in 31% of all patients.

“We must anticipate that this pandemic has the potential to dramatically increase the number of ME/CFS patients,” Dr. Kedor and colleagues write. “At the same time, it offers the unique chance to identify ME/CFS patients in a very early stage of disease and apply interventions such as pacing and coping early with a better therapeutic prognosis. Further, it is an unprecedented opportunity to understand the underlying pathomechanism and characterize targets for specific treatment approaches.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen and Dr. Komaroff reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides yet more evidence that a significant subset of people who experience persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance following COVID-19 will meet diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Data from the prospective observational study of 42 patients with “post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS),” including persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance, suggest that a large proportion will meet strict diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, including the hallmark postexertional malaise (PEM). Still others may experience similar disability but lack duration and/or severity requirements for the diagnosis.

Moreover, disease severity and symptom burden were found similar in those with ME/CFS following COVID-19 and in a group of 19 age- and sex-matched individuals with ME/CFS that wasn’t associated with COVID-19.

“The major finding is that ME/CFS is indeed part of the spectrum of the post-COVID syndrome and very similar to the ME/CFS we know after other infectious triggers,” senior author Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, acting director of the Institute for Medical Immunology at the Charité University Medicine Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, told this news organization.

Importantly, from a clinical standpoint, both diminished hand-grip strength (HGS) and orthostatic intolerance were common across all patient groups, as were several laboratory values, Claudia Kedor, MD, and colleagues at Charité report in the paper, published online in Nature Communications.

Of the 42 with PCS, including persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance lasting at least 6 months, 19 met the rigorous Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) for ME/CFS, established in 2003, which require PEM, along with sleep dysfunction, significant persistent fatigue, pain, and several other symptoms from neurological/cognitive, autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune categories that persist for at least 6 months.

Of the 23 who did not meet the CCC criteria, 18 still experienced PEM but for less than the required 14 hours set by the authors based on recent data. The original CCC had suggested 24 hours as the PEM duration. Eight subjects met all the Canadian criteria except for the neurological/cognitive symptoms. None of the 42 had evidence of severe depression.

The previously widely used 1994 “Fukuda” criteria for ME/CFS are no longer recommended because they don’t require PEM, which is now considered a key symptom. The more recent 2015 Institute (now Academy) of Medicine criteria don’t define the length of PEM, the authors note in the paper.

Dr. Scheibenbogen said, “Post-COVID has a spectrum of syndromes and conditions. We see that a subset of patients have similar symptoms of ME/CFS but don’t fulfill the CCC, although they may meet less stringent criteria. We think this is of relevance for both diagnostic markers and development of therapy, because there may be different pathomechanisms between the subsets of post-COVID patients.”

She pointed to other studies from her group suggesting that inflammation is present early in post-COVID (not yet published), while in the subset that goes on to ME/CFS, autoantibodies or endothelial dysfunction play a more important role. «At the moment, it’s quite complex, and I don’t think in the end we will have just one pathomechanism. So I think we’ll need to develop various treatment strategies.”

Asked to comment on the new data, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and editor in chief of the Harvard Health Letter, told this news organization, “This paper adds to the evidence that an illness with symptoms that meet criteria for ME/CFS can follow COVID-19 in nearly half of those patients who have lingering symptoms. This can occur even in people who initially have only mild symptoms from COVID-19, although it is more likely to happen in the people who are sickest when they first get COVID-19. And those who meet criteria for ME/CFS were seriously impaired in their ability to function, [both] at work and at home.”

But, Dr. Komaroff also cautioned, “the study does not help in determining what fraction of all people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 go on to develop a condition like ME/CFS, nor how long that condition will last. It is crucial that we get answers to these questions, as the impact on the economy, the health care system, and the disability system could be substantial.”

He pointed to a recent report from the Brookings Institution (2022 Aug 24. “New data shows long Covid is keeping as many as 4 million people out of work” Katie Bach) “finding that “long COVID may be a major contributor to the shortage of job applicants plaguing many businesses.”
 

Biomarkers include hand-grip strength, orthostatic intolerance, lab measures

Hand-grip strength, as assessed by 10 repeat grips at maximum force and repeated after 60 minutes, were lower for all those meeting ME/CFS criteria, compared with the healthy controls. Hand-grip strength parameters were also positively correlated with laboratory hemoglobin measures in both PCS groups who did and didn’t meet the Canadian ME/CFS criteria.

A total of three patients with PCS who didn’t meet ME/CFS criteria and seven with PCS who met ME/CFS criteria had sitting blood pressures of greater than 140 mm Hg systolic and/or greater than 90 mm Hg diastolic. Five patients with PCS – four who met ME/CFS criteria and one who didn’t – fulfilled criteria for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Orthostatic hypotension was diagnosed in a total of seven with PCS, including one who did not meet ME/CFS criteria and the rest who did.

Among significant laboratory findings, mannose-binding lectin deficiency, which is associated with increased infection susceptibility and found in only about 6% of historical controls, was found more frequently in both of the PCS cohorts (17% of those with ME/CFS and 23% of those without) than it has been in the past among those with ME/CFS, compared with historical controls (15%).

There was only slight elevation in C-reactive protein, the most commonly measured marker of inflammation. However, another marker indicating inflammation within the last 3-4 months, interleukin 8 assessed in erythrocytes, was above normal in 37% with PCS and ME/CFS and in 48% with PCS who did not meet the ME/CFS criteria.

Elevated antinuclear antibodies, anti–thyroid peroxidase antibodies, vitamin D deficiencies, and folic acid deficiencies were all seen in small numbers of the PCS patients. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 1 levels were below the normal range in 31% of all patients.

“We must anticipate that this pandemic has the potential to dramatically increase the number of ME/CFS patients,” Dr. Kedor and colleagues write. “At the same time, it offers the unique chance to identify ME/CFS patients in a very early stage of disease and apply interventions such as pacing and coping early with a better therapeutic prognosis. Further, it is an unprecedented opportunity to understand the underlying pathomechanism and characterize targets for specific treatment approaches.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen and Dr. Komaroff reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides yet more evidence that a significant subset of people who experience persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance following COVID-19 will meet diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Data from the prospective observational study of 42 patients with “post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS),” including persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance, suggest that a large proportion will meet strict diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, including the hallmark postexertional malaise (PEM). Still others may experience similar disability but lack duration and/or severity requirements for the diagnosis.

Moreover, disease severity and symptom burden were found similar in those with ME/CFS following COVID-19 and in a group of 19 age- and sex-matched individuals with ME/CFS that wasn’t associated with COVID-19.

“The major finding is that ME/CFS is indeed part of the spectrum of the post-COVID syndrome and very similar to the ME/CFS we know after other infectious triggers,” senior author Carmen Scheibenbogen, MD, acting director of the Institute for Medical Immunology at the Charité University Medicine Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, told this news organization.

Importantly, from a clinical standpoint, both diminished hand-grip strength (HGS) and orthostatic intolerance were common across all patient groups, as were several laboratory values, Claudia Kedor, MD, and colleagues at Charité report in the paper, published online in Nature Communications.

Of the 42 with PCS, including persistent fatigue and exercise intolerance lasting at least 6 months, 19 met the rigorous Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) for ME/CFS, established in 2003, which require PEM, along with sleep dysfunction, significant persistent fatigue, pain, and several other symptoms from neurological/cognitive, autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune categories that persist for at least 6 months.

Of the 23 who did not meet the CCC criteria, 18 still experienced PEM but for less than the required 14 hours set by the authors based on recent data. The original CCC had suggested 24 hours as the PEM duration. Eight subjects met all the Canadian criteria except for the neurological/cognitive symptoms. None of the 42 had evidence of severe depression.

The previously widely used 1994 “Fukuda” criteria for ME/CFS are no longer recommended because they don’t require PEM, which is now considered a key symptom. The more recent 2015 Institute (now Academy) of Medicine criteria don’t define the length of PEM, the authors note in the paper.

Dr. Scheibenbogen said, “Post-COVID has a spectrum of syndromes and conditions. We see that a subset of patients have similar symptoms of ME/CFS but don’t fulfill the CCC, although they may meet less stringent criteria. We think this is of relevance for both diagnostic markers and development of therapy, because there may be different pathomechanisms between the subsets of post-COVID patients.”

She pointed to other studies from her group suggesting that inflammation is present early in post-COVID (not yet published), while in the subset that goes on to ME/CFS, autoantibodies or endothelial dysfunction play a more important role. «At the moment, it’s quite complex, and I don’t think in the end we will have just one pathomechanism. So I think we’ll need to develop various treatment strategies.”

Asked to comment on the new data, Anthony L. Komaroff, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and editor in chief of the Harvard Health Letter, told this news organization, “This paper adds to the evidence that an illness with symptoms that meet criteria for ME/CFS can follow COVID-19 in nearly half of those patients who have lingering symptoms. This can occur even in people who initially have only mild symptoms from COVID-19, although it is more likely to happen in the people who are sickest when they first get COVID-19. And those who meet criteria for ME/CFS were seriously impaired in their ability to function, [both] at work and at home.”

But, Dr. Komaroff also cautioned, “the study does not help in determining what fraction of all people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 go on to develop a condition like ME/CFS, nor how long that condition will last. It is crucial that we get answers to these questions, as the impact on the economy, the health care system, and the disability system could be substantial.”

He pointed to a recent report from the Brookings Institution (2022 Aug 24. “New data shows long Covid is keeping as many as 4 million people out of work” Katie Bach) “finding that “long COVID may be a major contributor to the shortage of job applicants plaguing many businesses.”
 

Biomarkers include hand-grip strength, orthostatic intolerance, lab measures

Hand-grip strength, as assessed by 10 repeat grips at maximum force and repeated after 60 minutes, were lower for all those meeting ME/CFS criteria, compared with the healthy controls. Hand-grip strength parameters were also positively correlated with laboratory hemoglobin measures in both PCS groups who did and didn’t meet the Canadian ME/CFS criteria.

A total of three patients with PCS who didn’t meet ME/CFS criteria and seven with PCS who met ME/CFS criteria had sitting blood pressures of greater than 140 mm Hg systolic and/or greater than 90 mm Hg diastolic. Five patients with PCS – four who met ME/CFS criteria and one who didn’t – fulfilled criteria for postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. Orthostatic hypotension was diagnosed in a total of seven with PCS, including one who did not meet ME/CFS criteria and the rest who did.

Among significant laboratory findings, mannose-binding lectin deficiency, which is associated with increased infection susceptibility and found in only about 6% of historical controls, was found more frequently in both of the PCS cohorts (17% of those with ME/CFS and 23% of those without) than it has been in the past among those with ME/CFS, compared with historical controls (15%).

There was only slight elevation in C-reactive protein, the most commonly measured marker of inflammation. However, another marker indicating inflammation within the last 3-4 months, interleukin 8 assessed in erythrocytes, was above normal in 37% with PCS and ME/CFS and in 48% with PCS who did not meet the ME/CFS criteria.

Elevated antinuclear antibodies, anti–thyroid peroxidase antibodies, vitamin D deficiencies, and folic acid deficiencies were all seen in small numbers of the PCS patients. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 1 levels were below the normal range in 31% of all patients.

“We must anticipate that this pandemic has the potential to dramatically increase the number of ME/CFS patients,” Dr. Kedor and colleagues write. “At the same time, it offers the unique chance to identify ME/CFS patients in a very early stage of disease and apply interventions such as pacing and coping early with a better therapeutic prognosis. Further, it is an unprecedented opportunity to understand the underlying pathomechanism and characterize targets for specific treatment approaches.”

Dr. Scheibenbogen and Dr. Komaroff reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The annual incidence of hip fractures declined in most countries from 2005 to 2018, but this rate is projected to roughly double by 2050, according to a new study of 19 countries/regions.

The study by Chor-Wing Sing, PhD, and colleagues was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The predicted increase in hip fractures is being driven by the aging population, with the population of those age 85 and older projected to increase 4.5-fold from 2010 to 2050, they note.

The researchers also estimate that from 2018 to 2050 the incidence of fractures will increase by 1.9-fold overall – more in men (2.4-fold) than in women (1.7-fold).

In addition, rates of use of osteoporosis drugs 1 year after a hip fracture were less than 50%, with less treatment in men. Men were also more likely than women to die within 1 year of a hip fracture.

iStock/Thinkstock

Aging will fuel rise in hip fractures; more preventive treatment needed

“Even though there is a decreasing trend of hip fracture incidence in some countries, such a percentage decrease is insufficient to offset the percentage increase in the aging population,” senior co-author Ching-Lung Cheung, PhD, associate professor in the department of pharmacology and pharmacy at the University of Hong Kong, explained to this news organization.

The takeaways from the study are that “a greater effort on fracture prevention should be made to avoid the continuous increase in the number of hip fractures,” he said.

In addition, “although initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication after hip fracture is recommended in international guidelines, the 1-year treatment rate [was] well below 50% in most of the countries and regions studied. This indicates the treatment rate is far from optimal.”

“Our study also showed that the use of anti-osteoporosis medications following a hip fracture is lower in men than in women by 30% to 67%,” he said. “Thus, more attention should be paid to preventing and treating hip fractures in men.”

“The greater increase in the projected number of hip fractures in men than in women “could be [because] osteoporosis is commonly perceived as a ‘woman’s disease,’ ” he speculated.

Invited to comment, Juliet Compston, MD, who selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlight abstracts at the ASBMR meeting, agrees that “there is substantial room for improvement” in osteoporosis treatment rates following a hip fracture “in all the regions covered by the study.”

“In addition,” she continues, “the wide variations in treatment rates can provide important lessons about the most effective models of care for people who sustain a hip fracture: for example, fracture liaison services.”

Men suffer as osteoporosis perceived to be a ‘woman’s disease’

The even lower treatment rate in men than women is “concerning and likely reflects the mistaken perception that osteoporosis is predominantly a disease affecting women,” notes Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.  

Also invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, said that the projected doubling of hip fractures “is likely mainly due to aging of the population, with increasing lifespan for males in particular. However, increasing urbanization and decreasing weight-bearing exercise as a result are likely to also contribute in developing countries.”

“Unfortunately, despite the advances in treatments for osteoporosis over the last 25 years, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low, and osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in postmenopausal women and older men,” added Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research.

“More targeted screening for osteoporosis would help,” he said, “as would treating patients for it following other minimal trauma fractures (vertebral, distal radius, and humerus, etc.), since if left untreated, about 50% of these patients will have hip fractures later in life.”

“Some countries may be doing better because they have health quality standards for hip fracture (for example, surgery within 24 hours, investigation, and treatment for osteoporosis). In other countries like Australia, bone density tests and treatment for osteoporosis are reimbursed, increasing their uptake.”

The public health implications of this study are “substantial” according to Dr. Compston. “People who have sustained a hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures if untreated. There is a range of safe, cost-effective pharmacological therapies to reduce fracture rate, and wider use of these would have a major impact on the current and future burden imposed by hip fractures in the elderly population.”

Similarly, Dr. Ebeling noted that “prevention is important to save a huge health burden for patients and costs for society.”

“Patients with minimal trauma fractures (particularly hip or spinal fractures) should be investigated and treated for osteoporosis with care pathways established in the hospitals, reaching out to the community [fracture liaison services],” he said.

Support for these is being sought under Medicare in the United States, he noted, and bone densitometry reimbursement rates also need to be higher in the United States.
 

Projections for number of hip fractures to 2050

Previous international reviews of hip fractures have been based on heterogeneous data from more than 10 to 30 years ago, the researchers note.

They performed a retrospective cohort study using a common protocol across 19 countries/regions, as described in an article about the protocol published in BMJ Open.

They analyzed data from adults aged 50 and older who were hospitalized with a hip fracture to determine 1) the annual incidence of hip fractures in 2008-2015; 2) the uptake of drugs to treat osteoporosis at 1 year after a hip fracture; and 3) all-cause mortality at 1 year after a hip fracture.

In a second step, they estimated the number of hip fractures that would occur from 2030 to 2050, using World Bank population growth projections.

The data are from 20 health care databases from 19 countries/regions: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, and U.K.), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain), and North and South America (Canada, United States, and Brazil).

The population in Japan was under age 75. U.S. data are from two databases: Medicare (age ≥ 65) and Optum.

Most databases (13) covered 90%-100% of the national population, and the rest covered 5%-70% of the population.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of hip fractures declined in 11 countries/regions (Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, U.K., Italy, Spain, United States [Medicare], Canada, and New Zealand).

“One potential reason that some countries have seen relatively large declines in hip fractures is better osteoporosis management and post-fracture care,” said Dr. Sing in a press release issued by ASBMR. “Better fall-prevention programs and clearer guidelines for clinical care have likely made a difference.”

Hip fracture incidence increased in five countries (The Netherlands, South Korea, France, Germany, and Brazil) and was stable in four countries (Australia, Japan, Thailand, and United States [Optum]).

The United Kingdom had the highest rate of osteoporosis treatment at 1-year after a hip fracture (50.3%). Rates in the other countries/regions ranged from 11.5% to 37%.

Fewer men than women were receiving drugs for osteoporosis at 1 year (range 5.1% to 38.2% versus 15.0% to 54.7%).

From 2005 to 2018, rates of osteoporosis treatment at 1 year after a hip fracture declined in six countries, increased in four countries, and were stable in five countries.

All-cause mortality within 1 year of hip fracture was higher in men than in women (range 19.2% to 35.8% versus 12.1% to 25.4%).

“Among the studied countries and regions, the U.S. ranks fifth with the highest hip fracture incidence,” Dr. Cheung replied when specifically asked about this. “The risk of hip fracture is determined by multiple factors: for example, lifestyle, diet, genetics, as well as management of osteoporosis,” he noted.

“Denmark is the only country showing no projected increase, and it is because Denmark had a continuous and remarkable decrease in the incidence of hip fractures,” he added, which “can offset the number of hip fractures contributed by the population aging.”

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Sing and Dr. Cheung have reported no relevant financial relationships. One of the study authors is employed by Amgen.

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

The annual incidence of hip fractures declined in most countries from 2005 to 2018, but this rate is projected to roughly double by 2050, according to a new study of 19 countries/regions.

The study by Chor-Wing Sing, PhD, and colleagues was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The predicted increase in hip fractures is being driven by the aging population, with the population of those age 85 and older projected to increase 4.5-fold from 2010 to 2050, they note.

The researchers also estimate that from 2018 to 2050 the incidence of fractures will increase by 1.9-fold overall – more in men (2.4-fold) than in women (1.7-fold).

In addition, rates of use of osteoporosis drugs 1 year after a hip fracture were less than 50%, with less treatment in men. Men were also more likely than women to die within 1 year of a hip fracture.

iStock/Thinkstock

Aging will fuel rise in hip fractures; more preventive treatment needed

“Even though there is a decreasing trend of hip fracture incidence in some countries, such a percentage decrease is insufficient to offset the percentage increase in the aging population,” senior co-author Ching-Lung Cheung, PhD, associate professor in the department of pharmacology and pharmacy at the University of Hong Kong, explained to this news organization.

The takeaways from the study are that “a greater effort on fracture prevention should be made to avoid the continuous increase in the number of hip fractures,” he said.

In addition, “although initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication after hip fracture is recommended in international guidelines, the 1-year treatment rate [was] well below 50% in most of the countries and regions studied. This indicates the treatment rate is far from optimal.”

“Our study also showed that the use of anti-osteoporosis medications following a hip fracture is lower in men than in women by 30% to 67%,” he said. “Thus, more attention should be paid to preventing and treating hip fractures in men.”

“The greater increase in the projected number of hip fractures in men than in women “could be [because] osteoporosis is commonly perceived as a ‘woman’s disease,’ ” he speculated.

Invited to comment, Juliet Compston, MD, who selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlight abstracts at the ASBMR meeting, agrees that “there is substantial room for improvement” in osteoporosis treatment rates following a hip fracture “in all the regions covered by the study.”

“In addition,” she continues, “the wide variations in treatment rates can provide important lessons about the most effective models of care for people who sustain a hip fracture: for example, fracture liaison services.”

Men suffer as osteoporosis perceived to be a ‘woman’s disease’

The even lower treatment rate in men than women is “concerning and likely reflects the mistaken perception that osteoporosis is predominantly a disease affecting women,” notes Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.  

Also invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, said that the projected doubling of hip fractures “is likely mainly due to aging of the population, with increasing lifespan for males in particular. However, increasing urbanization and decreasing weight-bearing exercise as a result are likely to also contribute in developing countries.”

“Unfortunately, despite the advances in treatments for osteoporosis over the last 25 years, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low, and osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in postmenopausal women and older men,” added Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research.

“More targeted screening for osteoporosis would help,” he said, “as would treating patients for it following other minimal trauma fractures (vertebral, distal radius, and humerus, etc.), since if left untreated, about 50% of these patients will have hip fractures later in life.”

“Some countries may be doing better because they have health quality standards for hip fracture (for example, surgery within 24 hours, investigation, and treatment for osteoporosis). In other countries like Australia, bone density tests and treatment for osteoporosis are reimbursed, increasing their uptake.”

The public health implications of this study are “substantial” according to Dr. Compston. “People who have sustained a hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures if untreated. There is a range of safe, cost-effective pharmacological therapies to reduce fracture rate, and wider use of these would have a major impact on the current and future burden imposed by hip fractures in the elderly population.”

Similarly, Dr. Ebeling noted that “prevention is important to save a huge health burden for patients and costs for society.”

“Patients with minimal trauma fractures (particularly hip or spinal fractures) should be investigated and treated for osteoporosis with care pathways established in the hospitals, reaching out to the community [fracture liaison services],” he said.

Support for these is being sought under Medicare in the United States, he noted, and bone densitometry reimbursement rates also need to be higher in the United States.
 

Projections for number of hip fractures to 2050

Previous international reviews of hip fractures have been based on heterogeneous data from more than 10 to 30 years ago, the researchers note.

They performed a retrospective cohort study using a common protocol across 19 countries/regions, as described in an article about the protocol published in BMJ Open.

They analyzed data from adults aged 50 and older who were hospitalized with a hip fracture to determine 1) the annual incidence of hip fractures in 2008-2015; 2) the uptake of drugs to treat osteoporosis at 1 year after a hip fracture; and 3) all-cause mortality at 1 year after a hip fracture.

In a second step, they estimated the number of hip fractures that would occur from 2030 to 2050, using World Bank population growth projections.

The data are from 20 health care databases from 19 countries/regions: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, and U.K.), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain), and North and South America (Canada, United States, and Brazil).

The population in Japan was under age 75. U.S. data are from two databases: Medicare (age ≥ 65) and Optum.

Most databases (13) covered 90%-100% of the national population, and the rest covered 5%-70% of the population.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of hip fractures declined in 11 countries/regions (Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, U.K., Italy, Spain, United States [Medicare], Canada, and New Zealand).

“One potential reason that some countries have seen relatively large declines in hip fractures is better osteoporosis management and post-fracture care,” said Dr. Sing in a press release issued by ASBMR. “Better fall-prevention programs and clearer guidelines for clinical care have likely made a difference.”

Hip fracture incidence increased in five countries (The Netherlands, South Korea, France, Germany, and Brazil) and was stable in four countries (Australia, Japan, Thailand, and United States [Optum]).

The United Kingdom had the highest rate of osteoporosis treatment at 1-year after a hip fracture (50.3%). Rates in the other countries/regions ranged from 11.5% to 37%.

Fewer men than women were receiving drugs for osteoporosis at 1 year (range 5.1% to 38.2% versus 15.0% to 54.7%).

From 2005 to 2018, rates of osteoporosis treatment at 1 year after a hip fracture declined in six countries, increased in four countries, and were stable in five countries.

All-cause mortality within 1 year of hip fracture was higher in men than in women (range 19.2% to 35.8% versus 12.1% to 25.4%).

“Among the studied countries and regions, the U.S. ranks fifth with the highest hip fracture incidence,” Dr. Cheung replied when specifically asked about this. “The risk of hip fracture is determined by multiple factors: for example, lifestyle, diet, genetics, as well as management of osteoporosis,” he noted.

“Denmark is the only country showing no projected increase, and it is because Denmark had a continuous and remarkable decrease in the incidence of hip fractures,” he added, which “can offset the number of hip fractures contributed by the population aging.”

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Sing and Dr. Cheung have reported no relevant financial relationships. One of the study authors is employed by Amgen.

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

The annual incidence of hip fractures declined in most countries from 2005 to 2018, but this rate is projected to roughly double by 2050, according to a new study of 19 countries/regions.

The study by Chor-Wing Sing, PhD, and colleagues was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The predicted increase in hip fractures is being driven by the aging population, with the population of those age 85 and older projected to increase 4.5-fold from 2010 to 2050, they note.

The researchers also estimate that from 2018 to 2050 the incidence of fractures will increase by 1.9-fold overall – more in men (2.4-fold) than in women (1.7-fold).

In addition, rates of use of osteoporosis drugs 1 year after a hip fracture were less than 50%, with less treatment in men. Men were also more likely than women to die within 1 year of a hip fracture.

iStock/Thinkstock

Aging will fuel rise in hip fractures; more preventive treatment needed

“Even though there is a decreasing trend of hip fracture incidence in some countries, such a percentage decrease is insufficient to offset the percentage increase in the aging population,” senior co-author Ching-Lung Cheung, PhD, associate professor in the department of pharmacology and pharmacy at the University of Hong Kong, explained to this news organization.

The takeaways from the study are that “a greater effort on fracture prevention should be made to avoid the continuous increase in the number of hip fractures,” he said.

In addition, “although initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication after hip fracture is recommended in international guidelines, the 1-year treatment rate [was] well below 50% in most of the countries and regions studied. This indicates the treatment rate is far from optimal.”

“Our study also showed that the use of anti-osteoporosis medications following a hip fracture is lower in men than in women by 30% to 67%,” he said. “Thus, more attention should be paid to preventing and treating hip fractures in men.”

“The greater increase in the projected number of hip fractures in men than in women “could be [because] osteoporosis is commonly perceived as a ‘woman’s disease,’ ” he speculated.

Invited to comment, Juliet Compston, MD, who selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlight abstracts at the ASBMR meeting, agrees that “there is substantial room for improvement” in osteoporosis treatment rates following a hip fracture “in all the regions covered by the study.”

“In addition,” she continues, “the wide variations in treatment rates can provide important lessons about the most effective models of care for people who sustain a hip fracture: for example, fracture liaison services.”

Men suffer as osteoporosis perceived to be a ‘woman’s disease’

The even lower treatment rate in men than women is “concerning and likely reflects the mistaken perception that osteoporosis is predominantly a disease affecting women,” notes Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.  

Also invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, said that the projected doubling of hip fractures “is likely mainly due to aging of the population, with increasing lifespan for males in particular. However, increasing urbanization and decreasing weight-bearing exercise as a result are likely to also contribute in developing countries.”

“Unfortunately, despite the advances in treatments for osteoporosis over the last 25 years, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low, and osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in postmenopausal women and older men,” added Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research.

“More targeted screening for osteoporosis would help,” he said, “as would treating patients for it following other minimal trauma fractures (vertebral, distal radius, and humerus, etc.), since if left untreated, about 50% of these patients will have hip fractures later in life.”

“Some countries may be doing better because they have health quality standards for hip fracture (for example, surgery within 24 hours, investigation, and treatment for osteoporosis). In other countries like Australia, bone density tests and treatment for osteoporosis are reimbursed, increasing their uptake.”

The public health implications of this study are “substantial” according to Dr. Compston. “People who have sustained a hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures if untreated. There is a range of safe, cost-effective pharmacological therapies to reduce fracture rate, and wider use of these would have a major impact on the current and future burden imposed by hip fractures in the elderly population.”

Similarly, Dr. Ebeling noted that “prevention is important to save a huge health burden for patients and costs for society.”

“Patients with minimal trauma fractures (particularly hip or spinal fractures) should be investigated and treated for osteoporosis with care pathways established in the hospitals, reaching out to the community [fracture liaison services],” he said.

Support for these is being sought under Medicare in the United States, he noted, and bone densitometry reimbursement rates also need to be higher in the United States.
 

Projections for number of hip fractures to 2050

Previous international reviews of hip fractures have been based on heterogeneous data from more than 10 to 30 years ago, the researchers note.

They performed a retrospective cohort study using a common protocol across 19 countries/regions, as described in an article about the protocol published in BMJ Open.

They analyzed data from adults aged 50 and older who were hospitalized with a hip fracture to determine 1) the annual incidence of hip fractures in 2008-2015; 2) the uptake of drugs to treat osteoporosis at 1 year after a hip fracture; and 3) all-cause mortality at 1 year after a hip fracture.

In a second step, they estimated the number of hip fractures that would occur from 2030 to 2050, using World Bank population growth projections.

The data are from 20 health care databases from 19 countries/regions: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, and U.K.), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain), and North and South America (Canada, United States, and Brazil).

The population in Japan was under age 75. U.S. data are from two databases: Medicare (age ≥ 65) and Optum.

Most databases (13) covered 90%-100% of the national population, and the rest covered 5%-70% of the population.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of hip fractures declined in 11 countries/regions (Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, U.K., Italy, Spain, United States [Medicare], Canada, and New Zealand).

“One potential reason that some countries have seen relatively large declines in hip fractures is better osteoporosis management and post-fracture care,” said Dr. Sing in a press release issued by ASBMR. “Better fall-prevention programs and clearer guidelines for clinical care have likely made a difference.”

Hip fracture incidence increased in five countries (The Netherlands, South Korea, France, Germany, and Brazil) and was stable in four countries (Australia, Japan, Thailand, and United States [Optum]).

The United Kingdom had the highest rate of osteoporosis treatment at 1-year after a hip fracture (50.3%). Rates in the other countries/regions ranged from 11.5% to 37%.

Fewer men than women were receiving drugs for osteoporosis at 1 year (range 5.1% to 38.2% versus 15.0% to 54.7%).

From 2005 to 2018, rates of osteoporosis treatment at 1 year after a hip fracture declined in six countries, increased in four countries, and were stable in five countries.

All-cause mortality within 1 year of hip fracture was higher in men than in women (range 19.2% to 35.8% versus 12.1% to 25.4%).

“Among the studied countries and regions, the U.S. ranks fifth with the highest hip fracture incidence,” Dr. Cheung replied when specifically asked about this. “The risk of hip fracture is determined by multiple factors: for example, lifestyle, diet, genetics, as well as management of osteoporosis,” he noted.

“Denmark is the only country showing no projected increase, and it is because Denmark had a continuous and remarkable decrease in the incidence of hip fractures,” he added, which “can offset the number of hip fractures contributed by the population aging.”

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Sing and Dr. Cheung have reported no relevant financial relationships. One of the study authors is employed by Amgen.

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

GHENT, BELGIUM – Filgotinib (Jyseleca), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, reduced the risk of flare after withdrawal of glucocorticoids in patients with vision-threatening, noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis, data from a phase 2 study show.

Robin Besuyen, MD, clinical development leader in inflammatory diseases at Galapagos BV, Leiden, the Netherlands, presented the phase 2 results of the placebo-controlled HUMBOLDT trial at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Treatment with filgotinib was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns for the immunosuppressed uveitis population.

Uveitis involves intraocular inflammation of the eye, accounts for 5%-20% of cases of blindness, and frequently requires long-term use of systemic therapy, mostly glucocorticoids or adalimumab (Humira).

Uveitis is documented to occur in 25%-40% of patients with spondyloarthritis, and its management is essential to prevent morbidity caused by vision loss and secondary complications. The majority of patients in HUMBOLDT had idiopathic uveitis (57%). One patient with spondyloarthritis was included.

Filgotinib is being investigated in the treatment of uveitis because Janus kinases have been found to play a role in the complex cytokine-signaling pathways implicated in immune-mediated diseases, including uveitis. “A preferential inhibitor of JAK 1 could play a role in managing this condition,” Dr. Besuyen said.

Session moderator Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), reflected on what he said was an “important study,” which, to his knowledge, was the first study of its kind in uveitis.

“The fact that they showed a significant decrease in uveitis in such a short period of time is very positive, especially for the uveitis we know of in spondyloarthritides,” he said in an interview. “The posterior uveitis was significantly impacted, and this is a very positive signal to move forward with further JAK studies in uveitis and apply them in patients with active uveitis and spondyloarthritis.”

With respect to patients with spondyloarthritis, he pointed out that, “if uveitis is fluctuating [in patients with spondyloarthritis] then patients can lose their vision. Uveitis is one of the most frequent extraskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis.”

However, he noted that the researchers did not show any correlation to HLA-B27 [human leukocyte antigen B27], which is “something we consider when we discuss uveitis in spondyloarthritides, but these data are convincing.”

 

Phase 2, randomized, double-blind trial – one of very few in uveitis

Participants in the randomized, double-blind trial were at least 18 years old and had intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis that was active despite 2 weeks of treatment with glucocorticoids (oral prednisolone 10-60 mg/day). They were randomized 1:1 to filgotinib (200 mg once daily) or placebo and were assessed for evidence of treatment failure from week 6 onwards. Glucocorticoids in all participants were tapered off over 15 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with treatment failure by week 24, defined as new, active, inflammatory chorioretinal and/or retinal vascular lesions at week 6 or later; worsening of best corrected visual acuity by 15 or more letters; or inability to achieve an anterior chamber cell or vitreous haze grade less than or equal to 0.5+ at week 6 or a 2-step grade increase after week 6. These effects had to be present in at least one eye.

Patients were stratified by the presence of sarcoidosis-related uveitis, baseline use of immunosuppressants, and prior use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. The mean patient age was 46 years, and around 60% were female, 57% had pan uveitis, and 22% had posterior uveitis. The mean number of uveitis flares in the previous 12 months was two.

A total of 37 patients received filgotinib and 35 received placebo, and together they composed the safety analysis set. Of these, 32 on filgotinib and 34 on placebo continued treatment to week 6, so 66 patients entered the efficacy analysis. 

The study sponsor, Gilead, decided to stop the trial early for business reasons after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected its application for filgotinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and only 74 patients of the originally planned 248 participants were randomized. “Therefore, the conclusions that have been drawn from the study are limited, and results should be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Besuyen noted.
 

Primary endpoint of treatment failure favored filgotinib

The primary endpoint of treatment failure was met by 12 (38%) of 32 patients taking filgotinib and 23 (67%) of 34 patients taking placebo, generating an odds ratio of 0.23 favoring filgotinib, which was statistically significant (P = .008), Dr. Besuyen reported.

The median time to treatment failure on or after week 6, one of the trial’s secondary endpoints, was 22 weeks for placebo but could not be calculated for filgotinib because fewer than half of these patients failed treatment with filgotinib.

Filgotinib was safe and well tolerated, and the safety profile emerging from this study was similar to that seen in the indications for which it is marketed in the European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan (rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis). There were no deaths, no major adverse cardiovascular events, no malignancies, and no opportunistic infections. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were seen in 13.5% with filgotinib and 5.7% with placebo.

Gilead Sciences and Galapagos NV sponsored and collaborated on the trial. Dr. Besuyen is an employee of Galapagos NV. Dr. Baraliakos has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

GHENT, BELGIUM – Filgotinib (Jyseleca), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, reduced the risk of flare after withdrawal of glucocorticoids in patients with vision-threatening, noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis, data from a phase 2 study show.

Robin Besuyen, MD, clinical development leader in inflammatory diseases at Galapagos BV, Leiden, the Netherlands, presented the phase 2 results of the placebo-controlled HUMBOLDT trial at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Treatment with filgotinib was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns for the immunosuppressed uveitis population.

Uveitis involves intraocular inflammation of the eye, accounts for 5%-20% of cases of blindness, and frequently requires long-term use of systemic therapy, mostly glucocorticoids or adalimumab (Humira).

Uveitis is documented to occur in 25%-40% of patients with spondyloarthritis, and its management is essential to prevent morbidity caused by vision loss and secondary complications. The majority of patients in HUMBOLDT had idiopathic uveitis (57%). One patient with spondyloarthritis was included.

Filgotinib is being investigated in the treatment of uveitis because Janus kinases have been found to play a role in the complex cytokine-signaling pathways implicated in immune-mediated diseases, including uveitis. “A preferential inhibitor of JAK 1 could play a role in managing this condition,” Dr. Besuyen said.

Session moderator Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), reflected on what he said was an “important study,” which, to his knowledge, was the first study of its kind in uveitis.

“The fact that they showed a significant decrease in uveitis in such a short period of time is very positive, especially for the uveitis we know of in spondyloarthritides,” he said in an interview. “The posterior uveitis was significantly impacted, and this is a very positive signal to move forward with further JAK studies in uveitis and apply them in patients with active uveitis and spondyloarthritis.”

With respect to patients with spondyloarthritis, he pointed out that, “if uveitis is fluctuating [in patients with spondyloarthritis] then patients can lose their vision. Uveitis is one of the most frequent extraskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis.”

However, he noted that the researchers did not show any correlation to HLA-B27 [human leukocyte antigen B27], which is “something we consider when we discuss uveitis in spondyloarthritides, but these data are convincing.”

 

Phase 2, randomized, double-blind trial – one of very few in uveitis

Participants in the randomized, double-blind trial were at least 18 years old and had intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis that was active despite 2 weeks of treatment with glucocorticoids (oral prednisolone 10-60 mg/day). They were randomized 1:1 to filgotinib (200 mg once daily) or placebo and were assessed for evidence of treatment failure from week 6 onwards. Glucocorticoids in all participants were tapered off over 15 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with treatment failure by week 24, defined as new, active, inflammatory chorioretinal and/or retinal vascular lesions at week 6 or later; worsening of best corrected visual acuity by 15 or more letters; or inability to achieve an anterior chamber cell or vitreous haze grade less than or equal to 0.5+ at week 6 or a 2-step grade increase after week 6. These effects had to be present in at least one eye.

Patients were stratified by the presence of sarcoidosis-related uveitis, baseline use of immunosuppressants, and prior use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. The mean patient age was 46 years, and around 60% were female, 57% had pan uveitis, and 22% had posterior uveitis. The mean number of uveitis flares in the previous 12 months was two.

A total of 37 patients received filgotinib and 35 received placebo, and together they composed the safety analysis set. Of these, 32 on filgotinib and 34 on placebo continued treatment to week 6, so 66 patients entered the efficacy analysis. 

The study sponsor, Gilead, decided to stop the trial early for business reasons after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected its application for filgotinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and only 74 patients of the originally planned 248 participants were randomized. “Therefore, the conclusions that have been drawn from the study are limited, and results should be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Besuyen noted.
 

Primary endpoint of treatment failure favored filgotinib

The primary endpoint of treatment failure was met by 12 (38%) of 32 patients taking filgotinib and 23 (67%) of 34 patients taking placebo, generating an odds ratio of 0.23 favoring filgotinib, which was statistically significant (P = .008), Dr. Besuyen reported.

The median time to treatment failure on or after week 6, one of the trial’s secondary endpoints, was 22 weeks for placebo but could not be calculated for filgotinib because fewer than half of these patients failed treatment with filgotinib.

Filgotinib was safe and well tolerated, and the safety profile emerging from this study was similar to that seen in the indications for which it is marketed in the European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan (rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis). There were no deaths, no major adverse cardiovascular events, no malignancies, and no opportunistic infections. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were seen in 13.5% with filgotinib and 5.7% with placebo.

Gilead Sciences and Galapagos NV sponsored and collaborated on the trial. Dr. Besuyen is an employee of Galapagos NV. Dr. Baraliakos has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

GHENT, BELGIUM – Filgotinib (Jyseleca), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, reduced the risk of flare after withdrawal of glucocorticoids in patients with vision-threatening, noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis, data from a phase 2 study show.

Robin Besuyen, MD, clinical development leader in inflammatory diseases at Galapagos BV, Leiden, the Netherlands, presented the phase 2 results of the placebo-controlled HUMBOLDT trial at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Treatment with filgotinib was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns for the immunosuppressed uveitis population.

Uveitis involves intraocular inflammation of the eye, accounts for 5%-20% of cases of blindness, and frequently requires long-term use of systemic therapy, mostly glucocorticoids or adalimumab (Humira).

Uveitis is documented to occur in 25%-40% of patients with spondyloarthritis, and its management is essential to prevent morbidity caused by vision loss and secondary complications. The majority of patients in HUMBOLDT had idiopathic uveitis (57%). One patient with spondyloarthritis was included.

Filgotinib is being investigated in the treatment of uveitis because Janus kinases have been found to play a role in the complex cytokine-signaling pathways implicated in immune-mediated diseases, including uveitis. “A preferential inhibitor of JAK 1 could play a role in managing this condition,” Dr. Besuyen said.

Session moderator Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany), reflected on what he said was an “important study,” which, to his knowledge, was the first study of its kind in uveitis.

“The fact that they showed a significant decrease in uveitis in such a short period of time is very positive, especially for the uveitis we know of in spondyloarthritides,” he said in an interview. “The posterior uveitis was significantly impacted, and this is a very positive signal to move forward with further JAK studies in uveitis and apply them in patients with active uveitis and spondyloarthritis.”

With respect to patients with spondyloarthritis, he pointed out that, “if uveitis is fluctuating [in patients with spondyloarthritis] then patients can lose their vision. Uveitis is one of the most frequent extraskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis.”

However, he noted that the researchers did not show any correlation to HLA-B27 [human leukocyte antigen B27], which is “something we consider when we discuss uveitis in spondyloarthritides, but these data are convincing.”

 

Phase 2, randomized, double-blind trial – one of very few in uveitis

Participants in the randomized, double-blind trial were at least 18 years old and had intermediate, posterior, or pan uveitis that was active despite 2 weeks of treatment with glucocorticoids (oral prednisolone 10-60 mg/day). They were randomized 1:1 to filgotinib (200 mg once daily) or placebo and were assessed for evidence of treatment failure from week 6 onwards. Glucocorticoids in all participants were tapered off over 15 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with treatment failure by week 24, defined as new, active, inflammatory chorioretinal and/or retinal vascular lesions at week 6 or later; worsening of best corrected visual acuity by 15 or more letters; or inability to achieve an anterior chamber cell or vitreous haze grade less than or equal to 0.5+ at week 6 or a 2-step grade increase after week 6. These effects had to be present in at least one eye.

Patients were stratified by the presence of sarcoidosis-related uveitis, baseline use of immunosuppressants, and prior use of anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. The mean patient age was 46 years, and around 60% were female, 57% had pan uveitis, and 22% had posterior uveitis. The mean number of uveitis flares in the previous 12 months was two.

A total of 37 patients received filgotinib and 35 received placebo, and together they composed the safety analysis set. Of these, 32 on filgotinib and 34 on placebo continued treatment to week 6, so 66 patients entered the efficacy analysis. 

The study sponsor, Gilead, decided to stop the trial early for business reasons after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected its application for filgotinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and only 74 patients of the originally planned 248 participants were randomized. “Therefore, the conclusions that have been drawn from the study are limited, and results should be interpreted with caution,” Dr. Besuyen noted.
 

Primary endpoint of treatment failure favored filgotinib

The primary endpoint of treatment failure was met by 12 (38%) of 32 patients taking filgotinib and 23 (67%) of 34 patients taking placebo, generating an odds ratio of 0.23 favoring filgotinib, which was statistically significant (P = .008), Dr. Besuyen reported.

The median time to treatment failure on or after week 6, one of the trial’s secondary endpoints, was 22 weeks for placebo but could not be calculated for filgotinib because fewer than half of these patients failed treatment with filgotinib.

Filgotinib was safe and well tolerated, and the safety profile emerging from this study was similar to that seen in the indications for which it is marketed in the European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan (rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis). There were no deaths, no major adverse cardiovascular events, no malignancies, and no opportunistic infections. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were seen in 13.5% with filgotinib and 5.7% with placebo.

Gilead Sciences and Galapagos NV sponsored and collaborated on the trial. Dr. Besuyen is an employee of Galapagos NV. Dr. Baraliakos has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.