MDedge Rheumatology

Key clinical point: Abatacept stabilized pulmonary function and joint inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and had a favorable safety profile.

Major finding: Abatacept improved or stabilized lung disease in 72% of patients, with the median survival until progression or death being 72 months (95% CI 34-110 months). No significant decrease in the forced vital capacity or diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and a significant improvement in 28-joint Disease Activity Score (P  =  .024) were observed. Overall, 10.5% of patients reported severe adverse events.

Study details: This was a prospective, observational cohort study including 57 patients with RA-ILD who received abatacept as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, immunosuppressants, antifibrotic agents, or corticosteroids.

Disclosures: This study received grants from Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología and Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Spain. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mena-Vázquez N et al. Safety and effectiveness of abatacept in a prospective cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease. Biomedicines. 2022;10(7):1480 (Jun 22). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071480

Key clinical point: Abatacept stabilized pulmonary function and joint inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and had a favorable safety profile.

Major finding: Abatacept improved or stabilized lung disease in 72% of patients, with the median survival until progression or death being 72 months (95% CI 34-110 months). No significant decrease in the forced vital capacity or diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and a significant improvement in 28-joint Disease Activity Score (P  =  .024) were observed. Overall, 10.5% of patients reported severe adverse events.

Study details: This was a prospective, observational cohort study including 57 patients with RA-ILD who received abatacept as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, immunosuppressants, antifibrotic agents, or corticosteroids.

Disclosures: This study received grants from Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología and Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Spain. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mena-Vázquez N et al. Safety and effectiveness of abatacept in a prospective cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease. Biomedicines. 2022;10(7):1480 (Jun 22). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071480

Key clinical point: Abatacept stabilized pulmonary function and joint inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and had a favorable safety profile.

Major finding: Abatacept improved or stabilized lung disease in 72% of patients, with the median survival until progression or death being 72 months (95% CI 34-110 months). No significant decrease in the forced vital capacity or diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide and a significant improvement in 28-joint Disease Activity Score (P  =  .024) were observed. Overall, 10.5% of patients reported severe adverse events.

Study details: This was a prospective, observational cohort study including 57 patients with RA-ILD who received abatacept as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, immunosuppressants, antifibrotic agents, or corticosteroids.

Disclosures: This study received grants from Fundación Andaluza de Reumatología and Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga, Spain. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mena-Vázquez N et al. Safety and effectiveness of abatacept in a prospective cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease. Biomedicines. 2022;10(7):1480 (Jun 22). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10071480

Key clinical point: Hospitalized patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with vs without prior bariatric surgery were less likely to have in-hospital deaths, major morbidities, unfavorable discharges, and prolonged length of stay (LOS).

Major finding: Patients with vs without prior bariatric surgery were at a reduced risk for any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.42-0.48), in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.61), unfavorable discharge (aOR 0.48; 95% CI 0.44-0.53), and prolonged LOS (aOR 0.43; 95% CI 0.39-0.46).

Study details: This population-based, retrospective study included 33,075 hospitalized patients with morbid obesity and RA, of which 6615 patients with prior bariatric surgery were propensity-score matched with 26,460 patients without prior bariatric surgery.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lin I-C and Liu H. Impact of bariatric surgery on outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A propensity score–matched analysis of US nationwide inpatient sample, 2005–2018. Obes Surg. 2022 (Jun 29). Doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06177-8

Key clinical point: Hospitalized patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with vs without prior bariatric surgery were less likely to have in-hospital deaths, major morbidities, unfavorable discharges, and prolonged length of stay (LOS).

Major finding: Patients with vs without prior bariatric surgery were at a reduced risk for any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.42-0.48), in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.61), unfavorable discharge (aOR 0.48; 95% CI 0.44-0.53), and prolonged LOS (aOR 0.43; 95% CI 0.39-0.46).

Study details: This population-based, retrospective study included 33,075 hospitalized patients with morbid obesity and RA, of which 6615 patients with prior bariatric surgery were propensity-score matched with 26,460 patients without prior bariatric surgery.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lin I-C and Liu H. Impact of bariatric surgery on outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A propensity score–matched analysis of US nationwide inpatient sample, 2005–2018. Obes Surg. 2022 (Jun 29). Doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06177-8

Key clinical point: Hospitalized patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with vs without prior bariatric surgery were less likely to have in-hospital deaths, major morbidities, unfavorable discharges, and prolonged length of stay (LOS).

Major finding: Patients with vs without prior bariatric surgery were at a reduced risk for any morbidity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.45; 95% CI 0.42-0.48), in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.27-0.61), unfavorable discharge (aOR 0.48; 95% CI 0.44-0.53), and prolonged LOS (aOR 0.43; 95% CI 0.39-0.46).

Study details: This population-based, retrospective study included 33,075 hospitalized patients with morbid obesity and RA, of which 6615 patients with prior bariatric surgery were propensity-score matched with 26,460 patients without prior bariatric surgery.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lin I-C and Liu H. Impact of bariatric surgery on outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A propensity score–matched analysis of US nationwide inpatient sample, 2005–2018. Obes Surg. 2022 (Jun 29). Doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06177-8

Key clinical point: Sarcopenia and poor balance were associated with a higher risk for vertebral spinal osteoporotic fracture (VOPF), disease activity, and joint structure damage in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Women with vs without RA had a significantly higher incidence of sarcopenia (60.0% vs 11.1%; P < .0001), poor balance (44.1% vs 7.9%; P < .0001), and VOPF (21% vs 3.2%; P < .0001). Among women with RA, those with vs without VOPF had a significantly higher incidence of sarcopenia (75.6% vs 55.8%; P < .0001) and poor balance (68.3% vs 37.7%; P < .0001) and those with vs without sarcopenia and poor balance had a higher disease activity, more serious joint damage, and worse joint function (all P < .05).

Study details: This study included 195 women with RA and 126 age- and sex-matched healthy individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any source of funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Zhang M et al. Effect of sarcopenia and poor balance on vertebral spinal osteoporotic fracture in female rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:9477 (Jun 8). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13339-2

Key clinical point: Sarcopenia and poor balance were associated with a higher risk for vertebral spinal osteoporotic fracture (VOPF), disease activity, and joint structure damage in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Women with vs without RA had a significantly higher incidence of sarcopenia (60.0% vs 11.1%; P < .0001), poor balance (44.1% vs 7.9%; P < .0001), and VOPF (21% vs 3.2%; P < .0001). Among women with RA, those with vs without VOPF had a significantly higher incidence of sarcopenia (75.6% vs 55.8%; P < .0001) and poor balance (68.3% vs 37.7%; P < .0001) and those with vs without sarcopenia and poor balance had a higher disease activity, more serious joint damage, and worse joint function (all P < .05).

Study details: This study included 195 women with RA and 126 age- and sex-matched healthy individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any source of funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Zhang M et al. Effect of sarcopenia and poor balance on vertebral spinal osteoporotic fracture in female rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:9477 (Jun 8). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13339-2

Key clinical point: Sarcopenia and poor balance were associated with a higher risk for vertebral spinal osteoporotic fracture (VOPF), disease activity, and joint structure damage in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Women with vs without RA had a significantly higher incidence of sarcopenia (60.0% vs 11.1%; P < .0001), poor balance (44.1% vs 7.9%; P < .0001), and VOPF (21% vs 3.2%; P < .0001). Among women with RA, those with vs without VOPF had a significantly higher incidence of sarcopenia (75.6% vs 55.8%; P < .0001) and poor balance (68.3% vs 37.7%; P < .0001) and those with vs without sarcopenia and poor balance had a higher disease activity, more serious joint damage, and worse joint function (all P < .05).

Study details: This study included 195 women with RA and 126 age- and sex-matched healthy individuals.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any source of funding. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Zhang M et al. Effect of sarcopenia and poor balance on vertebral spinal osteoporotic fracture in female rheumatoid arthritis. Sci Rep. 2022;12:9477 (Jun 8). Doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13339-2

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib vs abatacept treatment resulted in rapid and greater improvements in patient-reported physical function, pain, and overall health in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs-IR).

Major finding: At 12 weeks, a higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib vs abatacept reported clinically meaningful improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI; 74% vs 64%; P < .05), with significant improvements in patient-assessed disease activity (least-squares mean change [LSMC] −33.9 vs −28.4), pain (LSMC −35.3 vs −30.0), HAQ-DI (LSMC −0.65 vs −0.48), and EQ-5D-5L index (LSMC 0.26 vs 0.21; all P < .05) scores.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the SELECT-CHOICE phase 3 trial including 612 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and bDMARDs-IR patients who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib or abatacept with concomitant conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie Inc. Six authors declared being current or former employees or stockholders of AbbVie or a company receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with AbbVie and various sources.

Source: Bergman M et al. Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:15 (Jun 24). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02813-x

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib vs abatacept treatment resulted in rapid and greater improvements in patient-reported physical function, pain, and overall health in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs-IR).

Major finding: At 12 weeks, a higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib vs abatacept reported clinically meaningful improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI; 74% vs 64%; P < .05), with significant improvements in patient-assessed disease activity (least-squares mean change [LSMC] −33.9 vs −28.4), pain (LSMC −35.3 vs −30.0), HAQ-DI (LSMC −0.65 vs −0.48), and EQ-5D-5L index (LSMC 0.26 vs 0.21; all P < .05) scores.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the SELECT-CHOICE phase 3 trial including 612 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and bDMARDs-IR patients who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib or abatacept with concomitant conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie Inc. Six authors declared being current or former employees or stockholders of AbbVie or a company receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with AbbVie and various sources.

Source: Bergman M et al. Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:15 (Jun 24). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02813-x

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib vs abatacept treatment resulted in rapid and greater improvements in patient-reported physical function, pain, and overall health in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs-IR).

Major finding: At 12 weeks, a higher proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib vs abatacept reported clinically meaningful improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI; 74% vs 64%; P < .05), with significant improvements in patient-assessed disease activity (least-squares mean change [LSMC] −33.9 vs −28.4), pain (LSMC −35.3 vs −30.0), HAQ-DI (LSMC −0.65 vs −0.48), and EQ-5D-5L index (LSMC 0.26 vs 0.21; all P < .05) scores.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the SELECT-CHOICE phase 3 trial including 612 patients with moderate-to-severe RA and bDMARDs-IR patients who were randomly assigned to receive upadacitinib or abatacept with concomitant conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie Inc. Six authors declared being current or former employees or stockholders of AbbVie or a company receiving consulting fees from AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with AbbVie and various sources.

Source: Bergman M et al. Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:15 (Jun 24). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02813-x

Key clinical point: Ozoralizumab at a dose of 30 or 80 mg significantly improved clinical outcomes compared to placebo and was well tolerated with no new safety signals in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving 30/80 mg ozoralizumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (79.6%/75.3% vs 37.3%; P < .001) at 16 weeks and had structural damage nonprogression (73.0%/73.4% vs 56.0%; P < .01) at 24 weeks. No new adverse events were reported.

Study details: The data come from the phase 2/3 OHZORA trial including 381 patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who were randomly assigned to receive ozoralizumab (30 or 80 mg) or placebo in combination with methotrexate for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This trial was sponsored by Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Three authors reported being employees of Taisho Pharmaceutical. Several authors reported receiving grants, consulting fees, or speaking fees from various sources.

Source: Takeuchi T et al. Phase II/III results of the anti-TNF multivalent NANOBODY® compound ‘ozoralizumab’ in patient with rheumatoid arthritis (OHZORA trial). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022 Jun 21. doi: 10.1002/art.42273.

Key clinical point: Ozoralizumab at a dose of 30 or 80 mg significantly improved clinical outcomes compared to placebo and was well tolerated with no new safety signals in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving 30/80 mg ozoralizumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (79.6%/75.3% vs 37.3%; P < .001) at 16 weeks and had structural damage nonprogression (73.0%/73.4% vs 56.0%; P < .01) at 24 weeks. No new adverse events were reported.

Study details: The data come from the phase 2/3 OHZORA trial including 381 patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who were randomly assigned to receive ozoralizumab (30 or 80 mg) or placebo in combination with methotrexate for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This trial was sponsored by Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Three authors reported being employees of Taisho Pharmaceutical. Several authors reported receiving grants, consulting fees, or speaking fees from various sources.

Source: Takeuchi T et al. Phase II/III results of the anti-TNF multivalent NANOBODY® compound ‘ozoralizumab’ in patient with rheumatoid arthritis (OHZORA trial). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022 Jun 21. doi: 10.1002/art.42273.

Key clinical point: Ozoralizumab at a dose of 30 or 80 mg significantly improved clinical outcomes compared to placebo and was well tolerated with no new safety signals in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy.

Major finding: A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving 30/80 mg ozoralizumab vs placebo achieved ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (79.6%/75.3% vs 37.3%; P < .001) at 16 weeks and had structural damage nonprogression (73.0%/73.4% vs 56.0%; P < .01) at 24 weeks. No new adverse events were reported.

Study details: The data come from the phase 2/3 OHZORA trial including 381 patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who were randomly assigned to receive ozoralizumab (30 or 80 mg) or placebo in combination with methotrexate for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This trial was sponsored by Taisho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Three authors reported being employees of Taisho Pharmaceutical. Several authors reported receiving grants, consulting fees, or speaking fees from various sources.

Source: Takeuchi T et al. Phase II/III results of the anti-TNF multivalent NANOBODY® compound ‘ozoralizumab’ in patient with rheumatoid arthritis (OHZORA trial). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022 Jun 21. doi: 10.1002/art.42273.

Key clinical point: The drug discontinuation and 1-year response rates of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), and abatacept as second-line therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) appeared to be similar to those of tumor necrosis factor-inhibitors (TNFi). However, JAKi and IL-6i were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness.

Major finding: Compared with TNFi, the 1-year response rate and treatment retention were not significantly different for abatacept, IL-6i, and JAKi, but IL6-i (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.67-0.85) and JAKi (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.83) were less frequently discontinued because of inefficacy and often because of adverse events.

Study details: This study evaluated data of 31,846 treatment courses (TNFi: n = 17,522; abatacept: n = 2775; IL-6i: n = 3863; and JAKi: n = 7686) from 19 registers.

Disclosures: The registers were supported by Fundacion Española de Reumatología, the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency, and other sources. Several authors reported receiving personal or speaking fees, grants, or honoraria, or serving on speaker’s bureaus for various sources.

Source: Lauper K et al. Effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors, abatacept, IL6-inhibitors and JAK-inhibitors in 31 846 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in 19 registers from the ‘JAK-pot’ collaboration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Jun 15. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222586

Key clinical point: The drug discontinuation and 1-year response rates of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), and abatacept as second-line therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) appeared to be similar to those of tumor necrosis factor-inhibitors (TNFi). However, JAKi and IL-6i were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness.

Major finding: Compared with TNFi, the 1-year response rate and treatment retention were not significantly different for abatacept, IL-6i, and JAKi, but IL6-i (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.67-0.85) and JAKi (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.83) were less frequently discontinued because of inefficacy and often because of adverse events.

Study details: This study evaluated data of 31,846 treatment courses (TNFi: n = 17,522; abatacept: n = 2775; IL-6i: n = 3863; and JAKi: n = 7686) from 19 registers.

Disclosures: The registers were supported by Fundacion Española de Reumatología, the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency, and other sources. Several authors reported receiving personal or speaking fees, grants, or honoraria, or serving on speaker’s bureaus for various sources.

Source: Lauper K et al. Effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors, abatacept, IL6-inhibitors and JAK-inhibitors in 31 846 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in 19 registers from the ‘JAK-pot’ collaboration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Jun 15. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222586

Key clinical point: The drug discontinuation and 1-year response rates of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), and abatacept as second-line therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) appeared to be similar to those of tumor necrosis factor-inhibitors (TNFi). However, JAKi and IL-6i were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness.

Major finding: Compared with TNFi, the 1-year response rate and treatment retention were not significantly different for abatacept, IL-6i, and JAKi, but IL6-i (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.67-0.85) and JAKi (aHR 0.75; 95% CI 0.67-0.83) were less frequently discontinued because of inefficacy and often because of adverse events.

Study details: This study evaluated data of 31,846 treatment courses (TNFi: n = 17,522; abatacept: n = 2775; IL-6i: n = 3863; and JAKi: n = 7686) from 19 registers.

Disclosures: The registers were supported by Fundacion Española de Reumatología, the Spanish Medicines and Health Products Agency, and other sources. Several authors reported receiving personal or speaking fees, grants, or honoraria, or serving on speaker’s bureaus for various sources.

Source: Lauper K et al. Effectiveness of TNF-inhibitors, abatacept, IL6-inhibitors and JAK-inhibitors in 31 846 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in 19 registers from the ‘JAK-pot’ collaboration. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Jun 15. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222586

Key clinical point: Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) and chondrocalcinosis are more prevalent in seronegative vs seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and the symmetry of arthritis and the acuteness of attack best differentiate CPDD and RA.

Major finding: CPPD (84.9% vs 15.1%) and chondrocalcinosis (32.3% vs 16.6%; P < .001) were more prevalent in seronegative vs seropositive RA, with acute attacks being more frequent in CPDD (67.9%) than seronegative (28.2%) or seropositive (25.9%; P < .001) RA and symmetric arthritis being more prevalent in RA than CPDD (P  =  .007).

Study details: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 503 patients, of which 262 had RA (142 seropositive, 120 seronegative), 181 had CPPD, 30 had gout, and 30 had polymyalgia rheumatica.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific source of funding. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Krekeler M et al. High prevalence of chondrocalcinosis and frequent comorbidity with calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002383 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002383

Key clinical point: Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) and chondrocalcinosis are more prevalent in seronegative vs seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and the symmetry of arthritis and the acuteness of attack best differentiate CPDD and RA.

Major finding: CPPD (84.9% vs 15.1%) and chondrocalcinosis (32.3% vs 16.6%; P < .001) were more prevalent in seronegative vs seropositive RA, with acute attacks being more frequent in CPDD (67.9%) than seronegative (28.2%) or seropositive (25.9%; P < .001) RA and symmetric arthritis being more prevalent in RA than CPDD (P  =  .007).

Study details: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 503 patients, of which 262 had RA (142 seropositive, 120 seronegative), 181 had CPPD, 30 had gout, and 30 had polymyalgia rheumatica.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific source of funding. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Krekeler M et al. High prevalence of chondrocalcinosis and frequent comorbidity with calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002383 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002383

Key clinical point: Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) and chondrocalcinosis are more prevalent in seronegative vs seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and the symmetry of arthritis and the acuteness of attack best differentiate CPDD and RA.

Major finding: CPPD (84.9% vs 15.1%) and chondrocalcinosis (32.3% vs 16.6%; P < .001) were more prevalent in seronegative vs seropositive RA, with acute attacks being more frequent in CPDD (67.9%) than seronegative (28.2%) or seropositive (25.9%; P < .001) RA and symmetric arthritis being more prevalent in RA than CPDD (P  =  .007).

Study details: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 503 patients, of which 262 had RA (142 seropositive, 120 seronegative), 181 had CPPD, 30 had gout, and 30 had polymyalgia rheumatica.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific source of funding. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Krekeler M et al. High prevalence of chondrocalcinosis and frequent comorbidity with calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease in patients with seronegative rheumatoid arthritis. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002383 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002383

Key clinical point: Female reproductive status influences the likelihood of achieving rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission, with odds being higher in the premenopausal vs perimenopausal status and with the use of exogenous sex hormones.

Major finding: Female patients in perimenopause vs premenopause were less likely to achieve remission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.61-0.99). The use of exogenous sex hormones was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of achieving remission (aHR 1.20; P  =  .038).

Study details: This study pooled individual patient data from 5 phase 3 trials and evaluated 4455 female patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and varying menopausal status and exogenous sex hormone use who were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Daraghmeh DN et al. Female reproductive status and exogenous sex hormone use in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tocilizumab and csDMARDs. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jun 22). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac357

Key clinical point: Female reproductive status influences the likelihood of achieving rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission, with odds being higher in the premenopausal vs perimenopausal status and with the use of exogenous sex hormones.

Major finding: Female patients in perimenopause vs premenopause were less likely to achieve remission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.61-0.99). The use of exogenous sex hormones was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of achieving remission (aHR 1.20; P  =  .038).

Study details: This study pooled individual patient data from 5 phase 3 trials and evaluated 4455 female patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and varying menopausal status and exogenous sex hormone use who were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Daraghmeh DN et al. Female reproductive status and exogenous sex hormone use in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tocilizumab and csDMARDs. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jun 22). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac357

Key clinical point: Female reproductive status influences the likelihood of achieving rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remission, with odds being higher in the premenopausal vs perimenopausal status and with the use of exogenous sex hormones.

Major finding: Female patients in perimenopause vs premenopause were less likely to achieve remission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.78; 95% CI 0.61-0.99). The use of exogenous sex hormones was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of achieving remission (aHR 1.20; P  =  .038).

Study details: This study pooled individual patient data from 5 phase 3 trials and evaluated 4455 female patients with moderate-to-severe active RA and varying menopausal status and exogenous sex hormone use who were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Daraghmeh DN et al. Female reproductive status and exogenous sex hormone use in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tocilizumab and csDMARDs. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jun 22). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac357

In the last 2 decades, the number of women receiving awards from the American College of Rheumatology, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the British Society for Rheumatology has steadily increased, but the absolute percentage of female prize winners remains lower than male winners across the 41 total awards given by the three organizations, according to Thorsten Halling and colleagues at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The overall number of awards given by the three groups rose by 10% over the past 2 years. In 2021, 40% of awards given by the ACR went to females, compared with 48% by EULAR, and 50% by the BSR. However, the most prestigious prizes awarded by these groups were given less often to women, according to the researchers, who published their results online July 27, 2022, in The Lancet Rheumatology. They noted that during 2017-2021, just one in five top prizes from ACR went to a woman; once (20%) for the Presidential Gold Medal, and 26 times (23%) for the ACR Master Designation. During the same time period, only one woman (11%) received the EULAR Meritorious Service Award. In 2022, the EULAR Health Professionals in Rheumatology Lifetime Achievement Award was inaugurated and given to Christina Opava. As for the most important prizes of the BSR, the corresponding numbers for female recipients are 25% for the Michael Mason Award and 33% for the Garrod Award.” This pattern did not seem to change in 2022 at the BSR and EULAR annual meetings; the 2022 ACR annual meeting is in November.

ptasha/Getty Images

The trend is also seen in others fields, noted the researchers, who cited only one woman winning mathematics’ Fields Medal since it began in 1936 and female scientists winning only 7% of the Nobel Prize awards in the categories physiology or medicine, physics, and chemistry. In one larger study of 141 international research prizes that were awarded 3,445 times during 2001-2020, only 262 recipients were women.

Changing the status quo begins with awareness, according to the authors, who propose three strategies for prize juries to follow to raise the number of female awardees. “First, it is important to stimulate diversity among both nominees and the members of prize committees. Efforts to diversify the pool of nominees have already been initiated by large science prize players, such as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden and the Wolf Foundation in Israel. This diversity should not only take gender into account, but also geographical region, ethnicity, and age. In the prize statutes, we recommend that the biological age of the applicants should no longer play a role for young scientist awards, but only the academic age. Second, if prizes are to be named after a person or people, we suggest that they should increasingly honor rheumatologists who are women to further increase their visibility in the field of rheumatology. We can note that, so far, no single award is named after a rheumatologist who is a woman. Third, we are convinced that more transparency around the nomination procedure will promote gender equity among the future prize winners.”

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In the last 2 decades, the number of women receiving awards from the American College of Rheumatology, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the British Society for Rheumatology has steadily increased, but the absolute percentage of female prize winners remains lower than male winners across the 41 total awards given by the three organizations, according to Thorsten Halling and colleagues at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The overall number of awards given by the three groups rose by 10% over the past 2 years. In 2021, 40% of awards given by the ACR went to females, compared with 48% by EULAR, and 50% by the BSR. However, the most prestigious prizes awarded by these groups were given less often to women, according to the researchers, who published their results online July 27, 2022, in The Lancet Rheumatology. They noted that during 2017-2021, just one in five top prizes from ACR went to a woman; once (20%) for the Presidential Gold Medal, and 26 times (23%) for the ACR Master Designation. During the same time period, only one woman (11%) received the EULAR Meritorious Service Award. In 2022, the EULAR Health Professionals in Rheumatology Lifetime Achievement Award was inaugurated and given to Christina Opava. As for the most important prizes of the BSR, the corresponding numbers for female recipients are 25% for the Michael Mason Award and 33% for the Garrod Award.” This pattern did not seem to change in 2022 at the BSR and EULAR annual meetings; the 2022 ACR annual meeting is in November.

ptasha/Getty Images

The trend is also seen in others fields, noted the researchers, who cited only one woman winning mathematics’ Fields Medal since it began in 1936 and female scientists winning only 7% of the Nobel Prize awards in the categories physiology or medicine, physics, and chemistry. In one larger study of 141 international research prizes that were awarded 3,445 times during 2001-2020, only 262 recipients were women.

Changing the status quo begins with awareness, according to the authors, who propose three strategies for prize juries to follow to raise the number of female awardees. “First, it is important to stimulate diversity among both nominees and the members of prize committees. Efforts to diversify the pool of nominees have already been initiated by large science prize players, such as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden and the Wolf Foundation in Israel. This diversity should not only take gender into account, but also geographical region, ethnicity, and age. In the prize statutes, we recommend that the biological age of the applicants should no longer play a role for young scientist awards, but only the academic age. Second, if prizes are to be named after a person or people, we suggest that they should increasingly honor rheumatologists who are women to further increase their visibility in the field of rheumatology. We can note that, so far, no single award is named after a rheumatologist who is a woman. Third, we are convinced that more transparency around the nomination procedure will promote gender equity among the future prize winners.”

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

In the last 2 decades, the number of women receiving awards from the American College of Rheumatology, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the British Society for Rheumatology has steadily increased, but the absolute percentage of female prize winners remains lower than male winners across the 41 total awards given by the three organizations, according to Thorsten Halling and colleagues at Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, Germany.

The overall number of awards given by the three groups rose by 10% over the past 2 years. In 2021, 40% of awards given by the ACR went to females, compared with 48% by EULAR, and 50% by the BSR. However, the most prestigious prizes awarded by these groups were given less often to women, according to the researchers, who published their results online July 27, 2022, in The Lancet Rheumatology. They noted that during 2017-2021, just one in five top prizes from ACR went to a woman; once (20%) for the Presidential Gold Medal, and 26 times (23%) for the ACR Master Designation. During the same time period, only one woman (11%) received the EULAR Meritorious Service Award. In 2022, the EULAR Health Professionals in Rheumatology Lifetime Achievement Award was inaugurated and given to Christina Opava. As for the most important prizes of the BSR, the corresponding numbers for female recipients are 25% for the Michael Mason Award and 33% for the Garrod Award.” This pattern did not seem to change in 2022 at the BSR and EULAR annual meetings; the 2022 ACR annual meeting is in November.

ptasha/Getty Images

The trend is also seen in others fields, noted the researchers, who cited only one woman winning mathematics’ Fields Medal since it began in 1936 and female scientists winning only 7% of the Nobel Prize awards in the categories physiology or medicine, physics, and chemistry. In one larger study of 141 international research prizes that were awarded 3,445 times during 2001-2020, only 262 recipients were women.

Changing the status quo begins with awareness, according to the authors, who propose three strategies for prize juries to follow to raise the number of female awardees. “First, it is important to stimulate diversity among both nominees and the members of prize committees. Efforts to diversify the pool of nominees have already been initiated by large science prize players, such as the Royal Academy of Sciences in Sweden and the Wolf Foundation in Israel. This diversity should not only take gender into account, but also geographical region, ethnicity, and age. In the prize statutes, we recommend that the biological age of the applicants should no longer play a role for young scientist awards, but only the academic age. Second, if prizes are to be named after a person or people, we suggest that they should increasingly honor rheumatologists who are women to further increase their visibility in the field of rheumatology. We can note that, so far, no single award is named after a rheumatologist who is a woman. Third, we are convinced that more transparency around the nomination procedure will promote gender equity among the future prize winners.”

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved belimumab (Benlysta) for treating active lupus nephritis (LN) in children aged 5-17 years. The drug can now be used to treat adult and pediatric patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and LN. The decision expands therapeutic options for the estimated 1.5 million Americans currently living with lupus.

“This approval marks a significant step forward in providing treatment options to these children at risk of incurring kidney damage early on in life,” Stevan W. Gibson, president and CEO of the Lupus Foundation of America, said in a press release issued by the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. LN is a condition that sometimes develops in people with lupus. In LN, the autoimmune cells produced by the disease attack the kidney. Roughly 40% of people with SLE experience LN.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Damage to the kidneys causes the body to have difficulty processing waste and toxins. This can create a host of problems, including end-stage kidney disease, which may be treated only with dialysis or kidney transplant. These situations significantly increase mortality among people with lupus, especially children.

Prior to the approval, the only treatment pathway for children with active LN included immunosuppressants and corticosteroids. While they may be effective, use of these classes of drugs may come with many side effects, including susceptibility to other diseases and infections. Belimumab, by contrast, is a B-lymphocyte stimulator protein inhibitor. It inhibits the survival of B cells, which are thought to play a role in the disease’s pathophysiology.

Belimumab was first approved to treat patients with SLE in 2011. It was approved for children with SLE 8 years later. The drug’s indications were expanded to include adults with LN in 2020.

Organizations within the lupus research community have communicated their support of the FDA’s decision. “Our community has much to celebrate with the approval of the first and much-needed treatment for children with lupus nephritis,” Lupus Research Alliance President and CEO Kenneth M. Farber said in a release from the organization.

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