Clinical Edge Journal Scan

Key clinical point: Pemetrexed + vinorelbine vs vinorelbine monotherapy led to a greater improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes and had a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) previously treated with anthracycline and taxane.

Major finding: The median PFS improved by 45% with pemetrexed + vinorelbine vs vinorelbine monotherapy (5.7 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio 0.55; P = .001). Pemetrexed + vinorelbine also had a manageable safety profile in general.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 KCSG-BR15-17 trial including 125 patients with metastatic BC who had been treated with anthracycline and taxane previously and were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed + vinorelbine or vinorelbine monotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. Two authors declared receiving research funding or research drug supply from or serving in consulting or advisory roles for various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee DW, Jung KH, et al. Pemetrexed plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-17): A randomized, open label, multicenter, phase II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2023;113456 (Nov 20). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113456

Key clinical point: Pemetrexed + vinorelbine vs vinorelbine monotherapy led to a greater improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes and had a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) previously treated with anthracycline and taxane.

Major finding: The median PFS improved by 45% with pemetrexed + vinorelbine vs vinorelbine monotherapy (5.7 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio 0.55; P = .001). Pemetrexed + vinorelbine also had a manageable safety profile in general.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 KCSG-BR15-17 trial including 125 patients with metastatic BC who had been treated with anthracycline and taxane previously and were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed + vinorelbine or vinorelbine monotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. Two authors declared receiving research funding or research drug supply from or serving in consulting or advisory roles for various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee DW, Jung KH, et al. Pemetrexed plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-17): A randomized, open label, multicenter, phase II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2023;113456 (Nov 20). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113456

Key clinical point: Pemetrexed + vinorelbine vs vinorelbine monotherapy led to a greater improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes and had a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) previously treated with anthracycline and taxane.

Major finding: The median PFS improved by 45% with pemetrexed + vinorelbine vs vinorelbine monotherapy (5.7 vs 1.6 months; hazard ratio 0.55; P = .001). Pemetrexed + vinorelbine also had a manageable safety profile in general.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 KCSG-BR15-17 trial including 125 patients with metastatic BC who had been treated with anthracycline and taxane previously and were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed + vinorelbine or vinorelbine monotherapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. Two authors declared receiving research funding or research drug supply from or serving in consulting or advisory roles for various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lee DW, Jung KH, et al. Pemetrexed plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (KCSG-BR15-17): A randomized, open label, multicenter, phase II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2023;113456 (Nov 20). doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113456

Key clinical point: Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic mutations who had a pregnancy after diagnosis of early breast cancer (BC) reported prognostic outcomes similar to that of women without a pregnancy.

Major finding: The cumulative incidence of pregnancy was 22% at 10 years. The disease-free survival outcomes were comparable between patients with BC who did vs did not become pregnant (adjusted hazard ratio 0.99; P = .90).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 4732 young women age ≤ 40 years with a history of BC who had germline pathogenic BRCA mutations, of whom 659 women reported ≥1 pregnancy after BC.

Disclosures: The study was partly supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the 2022 Gilead Research Scholars Program in Solid Tumors. The authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, research funding, or speaker fees from and having other ties with Gilead and several other sources.

Source: Lambertini M et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer in young BRCA carriers: An international hospital-based cohort study. JAMA. 2023 (Dec 7). doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.25463

Key clinical point: Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic mutations who had a pregnancy after diagnosis of early breast cancer (BC) reported prognostic outcomes similar to that of women without a pregnancy.

Major finding: The cumulative incidence of pregnancy was 22% at 10 years. The disease-free survival outcomes were comparable between patients with BC who did vs did not become pregnant (adjusted hazard ratio 0.99; P = .90).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 4732 young women age ≤ 40 years with a history of BC who had germline pathogenic BRCA mutations, of whom 659 women reported ≥1 pregnancy after BC.

Disclosures: The study was partly supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the 2022 Gilead Research Scholars Program in Solid Tumors. The authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, research funding, or speaker fees from and having other ties with Gilead and several other sources.

Source: Lambertini M et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer in young BRCA carriers: An international hospital-based cohort study. JAMA. 2023 (Dec 7). doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.25463

Key clinical point: Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic mutations who had a pregnancy after diagnosis of early breast cancer (BC) reported prognostic outcomes similar to that of women without a pregnancy.

Major finding: The cumulative incidence of pregnancy was 22% at 10 years. The disease-free survival outcomes were comparable between patients with BC who did vs did not become pregnant (adjusted hazard ratio 0.99; P = .90).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 4732 young women age ≤ 40 years with a history of BC who had germline pathogenic BRCA mutations, of whom 659 women reported ≥1 pregnancy after BC.

Disclosures: The study was partly supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research and the 2022 Gilead Research Scholars Program in Solid Tumors. The authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, travel grants, research funding, or speaker fees from and having other ties with Gilead and several other sources.

Source: Lambertini M et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer in young BRCA carriers: An international hospital-based cohort study. JAMA. 2023 (Dec 7). doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.25463

While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has transformed the management of large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the majority of patients will ultimately relapse. Efforts to identify predictors of response remain an active area of investigation. One key variable that has been postulated to influence CAR T-cell outcomes is pretreatment bendamustine exposure. Specifically, there has been concern that the lymphodepleting effects of bendamustine could affect T-cell fitness, thus impairing CAR T-cell response. While consensus guidelines have recommended avoiding bendamustine prior to lymphocyte collection, clear data have been lacking. A recent retrospective, multicenter study, which included patients from seven European sites, reported outcomes based on prior bendamustine exposure (Iacoboni et al). In this study, 439 patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL, who received anti-CD19 commercial CAR T-cell therapy after two or more prior treatment lines of therapy, were included. Of these patients, 80 had received prior bendamustine. The authors found that patients recently exposed to bendamustine (< 9 months), vs bendamustine-naive patients, had a significantly lower overall response rate (40% vs 66%; P = .01), overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.11; P < .01), and progression-free survival (PFS; aHR 1.82; P < .01) after CAR T-cell infusion. These differences remained significant after inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score matching. Of note, the authors did not find that the cumulative dose of bendamustine affected outcomes. The authors also identified that, while the risk for cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was similar between the groups, hematologic toxicity and severe infections were increased in the bendamustine-exposed patients. These data support the recommendation to avoid bendamustine treatment prior to CAR T-cell apheresis. While treatment regimens such as polatuzumab plus bendamustine and rituximab are available in the relapsed setting for LBCL,¹ this regimen should be reserved for post CAR T-cell relapse or for patients not planning to proceed with cellular therapy. The impact of bendamustine exposure on other immune-mediated therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, remains unknown.

Quantitative PET/CT biomarkers have also emerged as predictors of response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A key variable of interest includes total metabolic tumor volume (MTV), which refers to the total volume of tumor with metabolic uptake. While prior studies have demonstrated a correlation of MTV on outcomes following treatment with chemotherapy and CAR T-cell therapy,^2,3 the effect of PET/CT biomarkers on outcomes with other novel agents remains poorly described. A recent study by Alderuccio and colleagues explored the predictive power of PET/CT biomarkers on outcomes in a clinical trial cohort of patients treated with the antibody drug conjugate loncastuximab tesirine. This post hoc analysis reviewed the screening PET/CT scans of 138 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL treated with two or more prior systemic therapy lines who received loncastuximab tesirine in LOTIS-2<.⁴ The authors found that an MTV ≥ 96 mL was significantly associated with failure to achieve a complete metabolic response (adjusted odds ratio 5.42; P = .002). Patients with an MTV ≥ 96 mL vs < 96 mL also had a shorter PFS (aHR 2.68; P = .002) and OS (aHR 3.09; P < .0001). In line with prior studies, this analysis demonstrates that baseline MTV has the potential to provide robust risk-stratification and confirms the value of PET/CT biomarkers in DLBCL across treatment types.

This month, the results of the phase 2 TARMAC study, which evaluated treatment with ibrutinib in combination with tisagenlecleucel, were also published. This study included 20 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who had received one or more prior lines of therapy, including 50% with prior Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) exposure. Ibrutinib was initiated prior to leukapheresis and continued through CAR T-cell manufacturing and for at least 6 months post tisagenlecleucel infusion. At 4 months post infusion, the overall and complete response rates were 80% each. Patients without and with prior BTKi exposure had complete response rates of 90% and 70%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 13 months, the estimated 12-month PFS was 75% and OS was 100%. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome rates were 55% and 20%, respectively, and grade 1-2 immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was seen in 10% of patients. The authors also demonstrated that markers of T-cell exhaustion were decreased in patients with longer ibrutinib exposure prior to leukapheresis. Also of note, the three patients with recent bendamustine therapy did not receive a durable response. Although this is a small study without a control arm, this study provides rationale for the potential advantage of combining BTKi with CAR T-cell therapy, even among patients with prior BTKi exposure.

Additional References

1.       Sehn LH, Hertzberg M, Opat S, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: survival update and new extension cohort data. Blood Adv. 2022;6(2):533-543. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005794

2.       Vercellino L, Cottereau AS, Casasnovas O, et al. High total metabolic tumor volume at baseline predicts survival independent of response to therapy. Blood. 2020;135(16):1396-1405. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019003526

3.       Dean EA, Mhaskar RS, Lu H, et al. High metabolic tumor volume is associated with decreased efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel in large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2020;4(14):3268-3276. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001900

4.       Caimi PF, Ai W, Alderuccio JP, et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LOTIS-2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(6):790-800. doi:

While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has transformed the management of large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the majority of patients will ultimately relapse. Efforts to identify predictors of response remain an active area of investigation. One key variable that has been postulated to influence CAR T-cell outcomes is pretreatment bendamustine exposure. Specifically, there has been concern that the lymphodepleting effects of bendamustine could affect T-cell fitness, thus impairing CAR T-cell response. While consensus guidelines have recommended avoiding bendamustine prior to lymphocyte collection, clear data have been lacking. A recent retrospective, multicenter study, which included patients from seven European sites, reported outcomes based on prior bendamustine exposure (Iacoboni et al). In this study, 439 patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL, who received anti-CD19 commercial CAR T-cell therapy after two or more prior treatment lines of therapy, were included. Of these patients, 80 had received prior bendamustine. The authors found that patients recently exposed to bendamustine (< 9 months), vs bendamustine-naive patients, had a significantly lower overall response rate (40% vs 66%; P = .01), overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.11; P < .01), and progression-free survival (PFS; aHR 1.82; P < .01) after CAR T-cell infusion. These differences remained significant after inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score matching. Of note, the authors did not find that the cumulative dose of bendamustine affected outcomes. The authors also identified that, while the risk for cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was similar between the groups, hematologic toxicity and severe infections were increased in the bendamustine-exposed patients. These data support the recommendation to avoid bendamustine treatment prior to CAR T-cell apheresis. While treatment regimens such as polatuzumab plus bendamustine and rituximab are available in the relapsed setting for LBCL,¹ this regimen should be reserved for post CAR T-cell relapse or for patients not planning to proceed with cellular therapy. The impact of bendamustine exposure on other immune-mediated therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, remains unknown.

Quantitative PET/CT biomarkers have also emerged as predictors of response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A key variable of interest includes total metabolic tumor volume (MTV), which refers to the total volume of tumor with metabolic uptake. While prior studies have demonstrated a correlation of MTV on outcomes following treatment with chemotherapy and CAR T-cell therapy,^2,3 the effect of PET/CT biomarkers on outcomes with other novel agents remains poorly described. A recent study by Alderuccio and colleagues explored the predictive power of PET/CT biomarkers on outcomes in a clinical trial cohort of patients treated with the antibody drug conjugate loncastuximab tesirine. This post hoc analysis reviewed the screening PET/CT scans of 138 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL treated with two or more prior systemic therapy lines who received loncastuximab tesirine in LOTIS-2<.⁴ The authors found that an MTV ≥ 96 mL was significantly associated with failure to achieve a complete metabolic response (adjusted odds ratio 5.42; P = .002). Patients with an MTV ≥ 96 mL vs < 96 mL also had a shorter PFS (aHR 2.68; P = .002) and OS (aHR 3.09; P < .0001). In line with prior studies, this analysis demonstrates that baseline MTV has the potential to provide robust risk-stratification and confirms the value of PET/CT biomarkers in DLBCL across treatment types.

This month, the results of the phase 2 TARMAC study, which evaluated treatment with ibrutinib in combination with tisagenlecleucel, were also published. This study included 20 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who had received one or more prior lines of therapy, including 50% with prior Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) exposure. Ibrutinib was initiated prior to leukapheresis and continued through CAR T-cell manufacturing and for at least 6 months post tisagenlecleucel infusion. At 4 months post infusion, the overall and complete response rates were 80% each. Patients without and with prior BTKi exposure had complete response rates of 90% and 70%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 13 months, the estimated 12-month PFS was 75% and OS was 100%. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome rates were 55% and 20%, respectively, and grade 1-2 immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was seen in 10% of patients. The authors also demonstrated that markers of T-cell exhaustion were decreased in patients with longer ibrutinib exposure prior to leukapheresis. Also of note, the three patients with recent bendamustine therapy did not receive a durable response. Although this is a small study without a control arm, this study provides rationale for the potential advantage of combining BTKi with CAR T-cell therapy, even among patients with prior BTKi exposure.

Additional References

1.       Sehn LH, Hertzberg M, Opat S, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: survival update and new extension cohort data. Blood Adv. 2022;6(2):533-543. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005794

2.       Vercellino L, Cottereau AS, Casasnovas O, et al. High total metabolic tumor volume at baseline predicts survival independent of response to therapy. Blood. 2020;135(16):1396-1405. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019003526

3.       Dean EA, Mhaskar RS, Lu H, et al. High metabolic tumor volume is associated with decreased efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel in large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2020;4(14):3268-3276. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001900

4.       Caimi PF, Ai W, Alderuccio JP, et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LOTIS-2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(6):790-800. doi:

While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has transformed the management of large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the majority of patients will ultimately relapse. Efforts to identify predictors of response remain an active area of investigation. One key variable that has been postulated to influence CAR T-cell outcomes is pretreatment bendamustine exposure. Specifically, there has been concern that the lymphodepleting effects of bendamustine could affect T-cell fitness, thus impairing CAR T-cell response. While consensus guidelines have recommended avoiding bendamustine prior to lymphocyte collection, clear data have been lacking. A recent retrospective, multicenter study, which included patients from seven European sites, reported outcomes based on prior bendamustine exposure (Iacoboni et al). In this study, 439 patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL, who received anti-CD19 commercial CAR T-cell therapy after two or more prior treatment lines of therapy, were included. Of these patients, 80 had received prior bendamustine. The authors found that patients recently exposed to bendamustine (< 9 months), vs bendamustine-naive patients, had a significantly lower overall response rate (40% vs 66%; P = .01), overall survival (OS; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.11; P < .01), and progression-free survival (PFS; aHR 1.82; P < .01) after CAR T-cell infusion. These differences remained significant after inverse probability treatment weighting and propensity score matching. Of note, the authors did not find that the cumulative dose of bendamustine affected outcomes. The authors also identified that, while the risk for cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was similar between the groups, hematologic toxicity and severe infections were increased in the bendamustine-exposed patients. These data support the recommendation to avoid bendamustine treatment prior to CAR T-cell apheresis. While treatment regimens such as polatuzumab plus bendamustine and rituximab are available in the relapsed setting for LBCL,¹ this regimen should be reserved for post CAR T-cell relapse or for patients not planning to proceed with cellular therapy. The impact of bendamustine exposure on other immune-mediated therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, remains unknown.

Quantitative PET/CT biomarkers have also emerged as predictors of response in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). A key variable of interest includes total metabolic tumor volume (MTV), which refers to the total volume of tumor with metabolic uptake. While prior studies have demonstrated a correlation of MTV on outcomes following treatment with chemotherapy and CAR T-cell therapy,^2,3 the effect of PET/CT biomarkers on outcomes with other novel agents remains poorly described. A recent study by Alderuccio and colleagues explored the predictive power of PET/CT biomarkers on outcomes in a clinical trial cohort of patients treated with the antibody drug conjugate loncastuximab tesirine. This post hoc analysis reviewed the screening PET/CT scans of 138 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL treated with two or more prior systemic therapy lines who received loncastuximab tesirine in LOTIS-2<.⁴ The authors found that an MTV ≥ 96 mL was significantly associated with failure to achieve a complete metabolic response (adjusted odds ratio 5.42; P = .002). Patients with an MTV ≥ 96 mL vs < 96 mL also had a shorter PFS (aHR 2.68; P = .002) and OS (aHR 3.09; P < .0001). In line with prior studies, this analysis demonstrates that baseline MTV has the potential to provide robust risk-stratification and confirms the value of PET/CT biomarkers in DLBCL across treatment types.

This month, the results of the phase 2 TARMAC study, which evaluated treatment with ibrutinib in combination with tisagenlecleucel, were also published. This study included 20 patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) who had received one or more prior lines of therapy, including 50% with prior Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) exposure. Ibrutinib was initiated prior to leukapheresis and continued through CAR T-cell manufacturing and for at least 6 months post tisagenlecleucel infusion. At 4 months post infusion, the overall and complete response rates were 80% each. Patients without and with prior BTKi exposure had complete response rates of 90% and 70%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 13 months, the estimated 12-month PFS was 75% and OS was 100%. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 cytokine-release syndrome rates were 55% and 20%, respectively, and grade 1-2 immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome was seen in 10% of patients. The authors also demonstrated that markers of T-cell exhaustion were decreased in patients with longer ibrutinib exposure prior to leukapheresis. Also of note, the three patients with recent bendamustine therapy did not receive a durable response. Although this is a small study without a control arm, this study provides rationale for the potential advantage of combining BTKi with CAR T-cell therapy, even among patients with prior BTKi exposure.

Additional References

1.       Sehn LH, Hertzberg M, Opat S, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: survival update and new extension cohort data. Blood Adv. 2022;6(2):533-543. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005794

2.       Vercellino L, Cottereau AS, Casasnovas O, et al. High total metabolic tumor volume at baseline predicts survival independent of response to therapy. Blood. 2020;135(16):1396-1405. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019003526

3.       Dean EA, Mhaskar RS, Lu H, et al. High metabolic tumor volume is associated with decreased efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel in large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2020;4(14):3268-3276. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001900

4.       Caimi PF, Ai W, Alderuccio JP, et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LOTIS-2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(6):790-800. doi:

The association of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with increased cancer risk compared with the general population has long been known, though the balance between risk related to RA disease activity compared with risk related to immunosuppressive medication has not been clear. This increased risk is seen primarily with lymphoma and lung cancer, and prior research has suggested a risk with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), such as anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Beydon and colleagues performed a cohort study using a French national claims database; they looked at patients seen for at least 1 year with treatment for RA and compared the incidence of cancer by type. In over 257,000 patients, nearly 24,000 cancer cases were found. The most common cancers were breast, colon, lung, and prostate. All-cancer risk was > 1.2 (standardized incidence ratio) compared with those without cancer, higher in men compared with women, and the risk was increased in patients who received conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, and rituximab, but not interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Given that the risk was most highly associated with exposure to rituximab, this may show a type of bias rendering the study difficult to interpret, as rituximab is considered "safe" in cancer, and treatments such as csDMARD may have been given because they were not contraindicated in patients with cancer. This renders the study’s other results, such as lower risk with JAKi or higher risk with abatacept, hard to interpret.

Hayashi and colleagues performed a "real-world" comparative study using data from the Japanese observational ANSWER registry database to compare effectiveness of different JAKi over 6 months, a question of high interest given the availability of several JAKi currently. Within the database of over 11,000 participants, only 622 patients were exposed to tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, or upadacitinib, with 361 included in the final analysis due to missing baseline data (later missing data were imputed). Treatment retention rates were similar among all four JAKi, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events and due to lack of efficacy were similar as well. There was no significant difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), or C-reactive protein after 6 months between the four JAKi. Baricitinib had higher rates of CDAI low disease activity and remission at 6 months when used as a first-line biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD. However, this and other specific findings related to individual JAKi may be affected by the relatively small number of patients included and exposed to each JAKi, and the relatively short duration of follow-up (in terms of drug discontinuation), thus countering the initial premise for the study.

Finally, another important real-world study, by Tageldin and colleagues, looked at tapering therapy in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort of patients with RA in sustained disease remission or low disease activity for at least 6 months on stable medications (infused bDMARD excluded). This 2-year prospective cohort included reducing frequency, reducing dose, and stopping medication according to predefined regimens. Of 131 patients, 40% underwent tapering, with more flares in the taper group over > 400 days of follow-up; flare rates were much higher in those tapering b/tsDMARD compared with csDMARD. Though limited by small numbers in examining the three different tapering groups, this real-world study provides an important counterpoint to the notion that medication can be tapered easily in RA patients doing well. A more stringent definition or longer duration of disease remission may also affect this finding.

The association of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with increased cancer risk compared with the general population has long been known, though the balance between risk related to RA disease activity compared with risk related to immunosuppressive medication has not been clear. This increased risk is seen primarily with lymphoma and lung cancer, and prior research has suggested a risk with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), such as anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Beydon and colleagues performed a cohort study using a French national claims database; they looked at patients seen for at least 1 year with treatment for RA and compared the incidence of cancer by type. In over 257,000 patients, nearly 24,000 cancer cases were found. The most common cancers were breast, colon, lung, and prostate. All-cancer risk was > 1.2 (standardized incidence ratio) compared with those without cancer, higher in men compared with women, and the risk was increased in patients who received conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, and rituximab, but not interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Given that the risk was most highly associated with exposure to rituximab, this may show a type of bias rendering the study difficult to interpret, as rituximab is considered "safe" in cancer, and treatments such as csDMARD may have been given because they were not contraindicated in patients with cancer. This renders the study’s other results, such as lower risk with JAKi or higher risk with abatacept, hard to interpret.

Hayashi and colleagues performed a "real-world" comparative study using data from the Japanese observational ANSWER registry database to compare effectiveness of different JAKi over 6 months, a question of high interest given the availability of several JAKi currently. Within the database of over 11,000 participants, only 622 patients were exposed to tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, or upadacitinib, with 361 included in the final analysis due to missing baseline data (later missing data were imputed). Treatment retention rates were similar among all four JAKi, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events and due to lack of efficacy were similar as well. There was no significant difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), or C-reactive protein after 6 months between the four JAKi. Baricitinib had higher rates of CDAI low disease activity and remission at 6 months when used as a first-line biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD. However, this and other specific findings related to individual JAKi may be affected by the relatively small number of patients included and exposed to each JAKi, and the relatively short duration of follow-up (in terms of drug discontinuation), thus countering the initial premise for the study.

Finally, another important real-world study, by Tageldin and colleagues, looked at tapering therapy in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort of patients with RA in sustained disease remission or low disease activity for at least 6 months on stable medications (infused bDMARD excluded). This 2-year prospective cohort included reducing frequency, reducing dose, and stopping medication according to predefined regimens. Of 131 patients, 40% underwent tapering, with more flares in the taper group over > 400 days of follow-up; flare rates were much higher in those tapering b/tsDMARD compared with csDMARD. Though limited by small numbers in examining the three different tapering groups, this real-world study provides an important counterpoint to the notion that medication can be tapered easily in RA patients doing well. A more stringent definition or longer duration of disease remission may also affect this finding.

The association of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with increased cancer risk compared with the general population has long been known, though the balance between risk related to RA disease activity compared with risk related to immunosuppressive medication has not been clear. This increased risk is seen primarily with lymphoma and lung cancer, and prior research has suggested a risk with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), such as anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents. Beydon and colleagues performed a cohort study using a French national claims database; they looked at patients seen for at least 1 year with treatment for RA and compared the incidence of cancer by type. In over 257,000 patients, nearly 24,000 cancer cases were found. The most common cancers were breast, colon, lung, and prostate. All-cancer risk was > 1.2 (standardized incidence ratio) compared with those without cancer, higher in men compared with women, and the risk was increased in patients who received conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, TNF inhibitors (TNFi), abatacept, and rituximab, but not interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Given that the risk was most highly associated with exposure to rituximab, this may show a type of bias rendering the study difficult to interpret, as rituximab is considered "safe" in cancer, and treatments such as csDMARD may have been given because they were not contraindicated in patients with cancer. This renders the study’s other results, such as lower risk with JAKi or higher risk with abatacept, hard to interpret.

Hayashi and colleagues performed a "real-world" comparative study using data from the Japanese observational ANSWER registry database to compare effectiveness of different JAKi over 6 months, a question of high interest given the availability of several JAKi currently. Within the database of over 11,000 participants, only 622 patients were exposed to tofacitinib, baricitinib, peficitinib, or upadacitinib, with 361 included in the final analysis due to missing baseline data (later missing data were imputed). Treatment retention rates were similar among all four JAKi, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events and due to lack of efficacy were similar as well. There was no significant difference in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), or C-reactive protein after 6 months between the four JAKi. Baricitinib had higher rates of CDAI low disease activity and remission at 6 months when used as a first-line biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARD. However, this and other specific findings related to individual JAKi may be affected by the relatively small number of patients included and exposed to each JAKi, and the relatively short duration of follow-up (in terms of drug discontinuation), thus countering the initial premise for the study.

Finally, another important real-world study, by Tageldin and colleagues, looked at tapering therapy in the Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Tapering (RHEUMTAP) cohort of patients with RA in sustained disease remission or low disease activity for at least 6 months on stable medications (infused bDMARD excluded). This 2-year prospective cohort included reducing frequency, reducing dose, and stopping medication according to predefined regimens. Of 131 patients, 40% underwent tapering, with more flares in the taper group over > 400 days of follow-up; flare rates were much higher in those tapering b/tsDMARD compared with csDMARD. Though limited by small numbers in examining the three different tapering groups, this real-world study provides an important counterpoint to the notion that medication can be tapered easily in RA patients doing well. A more stringent definition or longer duration of disease remission may also affect this finding.

Depression is one of the most common comorbidities associated with migraine. Major depressive disorder is both a risk factor for chronic migraine and a condition that one is more likely to develop after being diagnosed with chronic migraine. The study by de Vries Lentsch and colleagues investigated the use of two of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments — erenumab and fremanezumab — compared with a control group of patients with chronic migraine, with an eye on outcomes to measure depression. Of note, reduction in headache frequency (defined as reduction in monthly migraine days) was also investigated as an independent variable.

This was a single-center study performed at the University of Leiden Headache Center. It was not a randomized trial, but all patients were followed with an e-diary and Day 0 vs Day 90 questionnaires that tracked their headache frequency and severity as well as a number of metrics related to depression. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was used to follow headache-related impact and disability, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure the degree of stressful situations the patient was experiencing.

The baseline depression scales between the three groups were 70%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; there were similar baseline levels of migraine frequency and disability as well. Both intervention groups showed a significant decrease in the symptoms of depression, and having a greater level of depression was negatively associated with reduction in monthly migraine days after 3 months. Of note, logistic-regression analysis determined that the reduction in depressive symptoms was independent of the reduction in migraine frequency.

Nearly all headache care providers are faced with challenging situations on a daily basis; often this is due to the comorbidity of mood disorders and high-frequency migraine. A traditional approach has been to provide the patient with a migraine preventive medication in the antidepressant family, such as a tricyclic antidepressant or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Although these can be helpful, they are less specific for migraine prevention. Many patients are also already taking antidepressant medications, and the addition of a migraine-preventive antidepressant would be contraindicated. This study broadens the possibilities for prevention in these complicated patients and shows that there is benefit in both migraine-related outcomes and markers for depression when using CGRP-based therapy.

The way headache medicine is practiced changed dramatically in 2018 with the advent of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments for migraine. These medications have allowed us to target migraine specifically, whereas all of the preventive medications for migraine prior to 2018 were developed for other conditions and only secondarily helped migraine. These include the antidepressant, antihypertensive, and antiepileptic classes of medications, as well as onabotulinum toxin A, which, although approved for migraine, is not targeting a migraine-specific factor. Moskatel and colleagues sought to better understand the changing patterns of prescribing the nonspecific, or "traditional," migraine preventive medications in light of the advent of CGRP treatment.

This was a retrospective cohort study using aggregated data from the Stanford headache center. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of the 10 most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinum toxin A, or any of the four CGRP mAb, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from the clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

The Stanford (STARR) database was filtered, searching for patients living in a California ZIP code with a diagnosis of chronic migraine who were followed from 2015 to 2021. The 10 most common non-CGRP preventive medications were amitriptyline/nortriptyline, valproate, duloxetine, gabapentin, memantine, propranolol, venlafaxine, verapamil, and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Erenumab was noted to initially be the most prescribed CGRP monoclonal antibody medication, but this was overtaken by galcanezumab after the second quarter of 2020 and throughout 2021. There is a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of patients receiving any of the non-CGRP preventive medications since 2018. The most significant decreases were in the tricyclic antidepressant class, as well as valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and onabotulinum toxin A. There was no statistically significant change in venlafaxine or gabapentin prescriptions.

This study highlights the changing face of headache medicine, and having a new class of migraine-specific treatment has significantly affected prescribing patterns. Although there is a statistically significant decrease in the prescribing of these non–migraine-specific preventive medications, they are still often recommended due to step-therapy regulations from insurance formularies, or as part of a polypharmacy regimen that may be more beneficial for a patient. These medications do improve patient outcomes and will remain a mainstay in migraine treatment.

Nearly all patients with migraine are recommended an acute medication to treat migraine attacks abortively; some patients are also recommended preventive therapies if migraine frequency significantly affects their quality of life. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for prevention recommend the initiation of a preventive medication at a frequency of 4-5 headache days per month or approximately 1 per week. Lipton and colleagues sought to determine whether there were any efficacy concerns in combining a CGRP mAb for prevention with ubrogepant, an oral CGRP antagonist, for acute treatment.

This was a prospective, open-level observational study assessing pain relief, return to normal function, and treatment satisfaction with patients given 50 or 100 mg of ubrogepant while concomitantly being given a seizure or mAb medication. Patients were allowed to be taking onabotulinumtoxinA as well as a CGRP mAb. The patients in this study were asked to track their headache symptoms using the Migraine Buddy e-diary. Meaningful pain relief was defined as a rating of migraine-related pain with one of the following choices 4 hours after taking the medication: no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or severe pain. Return to normal function was defined as whether the patient determined they were able to function normally relative to their baseline at specific times post intervention. This was based on a functional disability scale. Treatment satisfaction was determined on the basis of a seven-point rating scale for how satisfied the patient felt with the medication at the end of the trial period.

A total of 245 participants provided at least 30 days of data, with 44.5% of the patients taking erenumab, 35.1% taking galcanezumab, 18.0% taking fremanezumab, and 2.9% taking eptinezumab. Meaningful pain relief was achieved by 61.6% of patients at 2 hours and 80.4% of patients at 4 hours post dose for both the 50-mg and 100-mg dose of ubrogepant. Return to normal function was achieved by 34.7% of patients at 2 hours and 50.5% at 4 hours post dose as well. Patients reported a 72.7% satisfaction level with the medication.

When CGRP acute medications were first approved, there was concern about the use of a mAb together with an oral antagonist. It was thought that CGRP medications would be associated with fewer benefits than when these medications were used alone, due to the belief that only a specific amount of CGRP could be blocked at any specific time. This trial shows that the efficacy of CGRP acute medications is not affected by concomitant use of mAb. Many patients who respond well to CGRP mAb will benefit significantly from the additional abortive use of oral antagonists.

Depression is one of the most common comorbidities associated with migraine. Major depressive disorder is both a risk factor for chronic migraine and a condition that one is more likely to develop after being diagnosed with chronic migraine. The study by de Vries Lentsch and colleagues investigated the use of two of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments — erenumab and fremanezumab — compared with a control group of patients with chronic migraine, with an eye on outcomes to measure depression. Of note, reduction in headache frequency (defined as reduction in monthly migraine days) was also investigated as an independent variable.

This was a single-center study performed at the University of Leiden Headache Center. It was not a randomized trial, but all patients were followed with an e-diary and Day 0 vs Day 90 questionnaires that tracked their headache frequency and severity as well as a number of metrics related to depression. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was used to follow headache-related impact and disability, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure the degree of stressful situations the patient was experiencing.

The baseline depression scales between the three groups were 70%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; there were similar baseline levels of migraine frequency and disability as well. Both intervention groups showed a significant decrease in the symptoms of depression, and having a greater level of depression was negatively associated with reduction in monthly migraine days after 3 months. Of note, logistic-regression analysis determined that the reduction in depressive symptoms was independent of the reduction in migraine frequency.

Nearly all headache care providers are faced with challenging situations on a daily basis; often this is due to the comorbidity of mood disorders and high-frequency migraine. A traditional approach has been to provide the patient with a migraine preventive medication in the antidepressant family, such as a tricyclic antidepressant or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Although these can be helpful, they are less specific for migraine prevention. Many patients are also already taking antidepressant medications, and the addition of a migraine-preventive antidepressant would be contraindicated. This study broadens the possibilities for prevention in these complicated patients and shows that there is benefit in both migraine-related outcomes and markers for depression when using CGRP-based therapy.

The way headache medicine is practiced changed dramatically in 2018 with the advent of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments for migraine. These medications have allowed us to target migraine specifically, whereas all of the preventive medications for migraine prior to 2018 were developed for other conditions and only secondarily helped migraine. These include the antidepressant, antihypertensive, and antiepileptic classes of medications, as well as onabotulinum toxin A, which, although approved for migraine, is not targeting a migraine-specific factor. Moskatel and colleagues sought to better understand the changing patterns of prescribing the nonspecific, or "traditional," migraine preventive medications in light of the advent of CGRP treatment.

This was a retrospective cohort study using aggregated data from the Stanford headache center. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of the 10 most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinum toxin A, or any of the four CGRP mAb, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from the clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

The Stanford (STARR) database was filtered, searching for patients living in a California ZIP code with a diagnosis of chronic migraine who were followed from 2015 to 2021. The 10 most common non-CGRP preventive medications were amitriptyline/nortriptyline, valproate, duloxetine, gabapentin, memantine, propranolol, venlafaxine, verapamil, and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Erenumab was noted to initially be the most prescribed CGRP monoclonal antibody medication, but this was overtaken by galcanezumab after the second quarter of 2020 and throughout 2021. There is a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of patients receiving any of the non-CGRP preventive medications since 2018. The most significant decreases were in the tricyclic antidepressant class, as well as valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and onabotulinum toxin A. There was no statistically significant change in venlafaxine or gabapentin prescriptions.

This study highlights the changing face of headache medicine, and having a new class of migraine-specific treatment has significantly affected prescribing patterns. Although there is a statistically significant decrease in the prescribing of these non–migraine-specific preventive medications, they are still often recommended due to step-therapy regulations from insurance formularies, or as part of a polypharmacy regimen that may be more beneficial for a patient. These medications do improve patient outcomes and will remain a mainstay in migraine treatment.

Nearly all patients with migraine are recommended an acute medication to treat migraine attacks abortively; some patients are also recommended preventive therapies if migraine frequency significantly affects their quality of life. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for prevention recommend the initiation of a preventive medication at a frequency of 4-5 headache days per month or approximately 1 per week. Lipton and colleagues sought to determine whether there were any efficacy concerns in combining a CGRP mAb for prevention with ubrogepant, an oral CGRP antagonist, for acute treatment.

This was a prospective, open-level observational study assessing pain relief, return to normal function, and treatment satisfaction with patients given 50 or 100 mg of ubrogepant while concomitantly being given a seizure or mAb medication. Patients were allowed to be taking onabotulinumtoxinA as well as a CGRP mAb. The patients in this study were asked to track their headache symptoms using the Migraine Buddy e-diary. Meaningful pain relief was defined as a rating of migraine-related pain with one of the following choices 4 hours after taking the medication: no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or severe pain. Return to normal function was defined as whether the patient determined they were able to function normally relative to their baseline at specific times post intervention. This was based on a functional disability scale. Treatment satisfaction was determined on the basis of a seven-point rating scale for how satisfied the patient felt with the medication at the end of the trial period.

A total of 245 participants provided at least 30 days of data, with 44.5% of the patients taking erenumab, 35.1% taking galcanezumab, 18.0% taking fremanezumab, and 2.9% taking eptinezumab. Meaningful pain relief was achieved by 61.6% of patients at 2 hours and 80.4% of patients at 4 hours post dose for both the 50-mg and 100-mg dose of ubrogepant. Return to normal function was achieved by 34.7% of patients at 2 hours and 50.5% at 4 hours post dose as well. Patients reported a 72.7% satisfaction level with the medication.

When CGRP acute medications were first approved, there was concern about the use of a mAb together with an oral antagonist. It was thought that CGRP medications would be associated with fewer benefits than when these medications were used alone, due to the belief that only a specific amount of CGRP could be blocked at any specific time. This trial shows that the efficacy of CGRP acute medications is not affected by concomitant use of mAb. Many patients who respond well to CGRP mAb will benefit significantly from the additional abortive use of oral antagonists.

Depression is one of the most common comorbidities associated with migraine. Major depressive disorder is both a risk factor for chronic migraine and a condition that one is more likely to develop after being diagnosed with chronic migraine. The study by de Vries Lentsch and colleagues investigated the use of two of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments — erenumab and fremanezumab — compared with a control group of patients with chronic migraine, with an eye on outcomes to measure depression. Of note, reduction in headache frequency (defined as reduction in monthly migraine days) was also investigated as an independent variable.

This was a single-center study performed at the University of Leiden Headache Center. It was not a randomized trial, but all patients were followed with an e-diary and Day 0 vs Day 90 questionnaires that tracked their headache frequency and severity as well as a number of metrics related to depression. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). The Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) was used to follow headache-related impact and disability, and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure the degree of stressful situations the patient was experiencing.

The baseline depression scales between the three groups were 70%, 60%, and 66%, respectively; there were similar baseline levels of migraine frequency and disability as well. Both intervention groups showed a significant decrease in the symptoms of depression, and having a greater level of depression was negatively associated with reduction in monthly migraine days after 3 months. Of note, logistic-regression analysis determined that the reduction in depressive symptoms was independent of the reduction in migraine frequency.

Nearly all headache care providers are faced with challenging situations on a daily basis; often this is due to the comorbidity of mood disorders and high-frequency migraine. A traditional approach has been to provide the patient with a migraine preventive medication in the antidepressant family, such as a tricyclic antidepressant or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). Although these can be helpful, they are less specific for migraine prevention. Many patients are also already taking antidepressant medications, and the addition of a migraine-preventive antidepressant would be contraindicated. This study broadens the possibilities for prevention in these complicated patients and shows that there is benefit in both migraine-related outcomes and markers for depression when using CGRP-based therapy.

The way headache medicine is practiced changed dramatically in 2018 with the advent of CGRP monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatments for migraine. These medications have allowed us to target migraine specifically, whereas all of the preventive medications for migraine prior to 2018 were developed for other conditions and only secondarily helped migraine. These include the antidepressant, antihypertensive, and antiepileptic classes of medications, as well as onabotulinum toxin A, which, although approved for migraine, is not targeting a migraine-specific factor. Moskatel and colleagues sought to better understand the changing patterns of prescribing the nonspecific, or "traditional," migraine preventive medications in light of the advent of CGRP treatment.

This was a retrospective cohort study using aggregated data from the Stanford headache center. The percentage of patients with chronic migraine who had been prescribed one of the 10 most prescribed oral preventive medications or onabotulinum toxin A, or any of the four CGRP mAb, were calculated relative to the total number of patients with chronic migraine who received a prescription for any medication from the clinic during the pre-CGRP mAb years of 2015-2017 and post-approval years of 2019-2021.

The Stanford (STARR) database was filtered, searching for patients living in a California ZIP code with a diagnosis of chronic migraine who were followed from 2015 to 2021. The 10 most common non-CGRP preventive medications were amitriptyline/nortriptyline, valproate, duloxetine, gabapentin, memantine, propranolol, venlafaxine, verapamil, and onabotulinumtoxinA.

Erenumab was noted to initially be the most prescribed CGRP monoclonal antibody medication, but this was overtaken by galcanezumab after the second quarter of 2020 and throughout 2021. There is a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of patients receiving any of the non-CGRP preventive medications since 2018. The most significant decreases were in the tricyclic antidepressant class, as well as valproate, duloxetine, memantine, and onabotulinum toxin A. There was no statistically significant change in venlafaxine or gabapentin prescriptions.

This study highlights the changing face of headache medicine, and having a new class of migraine-specific treatment has significantly affected prescribing patterns. Although there is a statistically significant decrease in the prescribing of these non–migraine-specific preventive medications, they are still often recommended due to step-therapy regulations from insurance formularies, or as part of a polypharmacy regimen that may be more beneficial for a patient. These medications do improve patient outcomes and will remain a mainstay in migraine treatment.

Nearly all patients with migraine are recommended an acute medication to treat migraine attacks abortively; some patients are also recommended preventive therapies if migraine frequency significantly affects their quality of life. The American Headache Society/American Academy of Neurology guidelines for prevention recommend the initiation of a preventive medication at a frequency of 4-5 headache days per month or approximately 1 per week. Lipton and colleagues sought to determine whether there were any efficacy concerns in combining a CGRP mAb for prevention with ubrogepant, an oral CGRP antagonist, for acute treatment.

This was a prospective, open-level observational study assessing pain relief, return to normal function, and treatment satisfaction with patients given 50 or 100 mg of ubrogepant while concomitantly being given a seizure or mAb medication. Patients were allowed to be taking onabotulinumtoxinA as well as a CGRP mAb. The patients in this study were asked to track their headache symptoms using the Migraine Buddy e-diary. Meaningful pain relief was defined as a rating of migraine-related pain with one of the following choices 4 hours after taking the medication: no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, or severe pain. Return to normal function was defined as whether the patient determined they were able to function normally relative to their baseline at specific times post intervention. This was based on a functional disability scale. Treatment satisfaction was determined on the basis of a seven-point rating scale for how satisfied the patient felt with the medication at the end of the trial period.

A total of 245 participants provided at least 30 days of data, with 44.5% of the patients taking erenumab, 35.1% taking galcanezumab, 18.0% taking fremanezumab, and 2.9% taking eptinezumab. Meaningful pain relief was achieved by 61.6% of patients at 2 hours and 80.4% of patients at 4 hours post dose for both the 50-mg and 100-mg dose of ubrogepant. Return to normal function was achieved by 34.7% of patients at 2 hours and 50.5% at 4 hours post dose as well. Patients reported a 72.7% satisfaction level with the medication.

When CGRP acute medications were first approved, there was concern about the use of a mAb together with an oral antagonist. It was thought that CGRP medications would be associated with fewer benefits than when these medications were used alone, due to the belief that only a specific amount of CGRP could be blocked at any specific time. This trial shows that the efficacy of CGRP acute medications is not affected by concomitant use of mAb. Many patients who respond well to CGRP mAb will benefit significantly from the additional abortive use of oral antagonists.

Prior studies show inconsistent outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and data in premenopausal women is limited. The retrospective cohort study by Yoon and colleagues analyzed the data from three databases and included 225,938 premenopausal women with stage I-III ILC or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in their study to evaluate survival trends in young women with ILC. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with ILC vs IDC showed superior breast cancer severity score (BCSS) outcomes during the first 10 years after diagnosis (HR 0.73; P < .001); similar results were seen in the Asan Medical Center Research (AMCR) database (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = .01). After 10 years, the trend reversed, and BCSS outcomes worsened by 80% in patients with ILC in the SEER database (HR 1.80; P < .001). This was also seen in both the Korean Breast Cancer Registry (HR 2.79; 95% CI 1.32-5.88; P = .007) and AMCR database (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.04-4.79; P = .04). These findings remained consistent after adjusting for tumor characteristics including age, stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and after controlling for treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, in the SEER database, the histologic type exerted a statistically significant time-dependent association with BCSS, with ILC showing decreasing BCSS over time (time interaction HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.78-2.10; P < .001). Furthermore, on annual hazard function analysis, the ILC annual peak event of BCSS occurred 5 years after diagnosis, whereas the IDC recurrence events peaked at 5 years before diagnosis, suggesting a higher late recurrence rate for ILC. These findings may have implications on the duration of endocrine therapy used in these patients given concern for worse long-term outcomes in premenopausal patients with ILC.

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic mechanism for patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who have developed resistance to other endocrine therapies. Two of these agents, elacestrant and camizestrant, have demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in these populations, particularly in tumors with ESR1 mutations. The efficacy of these agents in tumors with ESR1 wild-type subgroup remains uncertain. A meta-analysis by Wong and colleagues of individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD, and SERENA-2) included 1290 patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer who received oral SERD or endocrine therapies (ET) of the physician's choice. In the overall cohort, oral SERD showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with ET of the physician's choice (HR 0.783; 95% CI 0.681-0.900; P < .001). This was also noted in the subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations (HR 0.557; 95% CI 0.440-0.705; P < .001); although no significant PFS benefit was observed with oral SERD in the ESR1 wild-type subgroup (HR 0.944; 95% CI 0.783-1.138; P = .543). These results suggest that the PFS benefit observed with oral SERD is mainly seen in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, and, therefore, these drugs should be prescribed accordingly.

Additional Reference

1. Cold S, Cold F, Jensen M-B, et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1347–1354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Prior studies show inconsistent outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and data in premenopausal women is limited. The retrospective cohort study by Yoon and colleagues analyzed the data from three databases and included 225,938 premenopausal women with stage I-III ILC or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in their study to evaluate survival trends in young women with ILC. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with ILC vs IDC showed superior breast cancer severity score (BCSS) outcomes during the first 10 years after diagnosis (HR 0.73; P < .001); similar results were seen in the Asan Medical Center Research (AMCR) database (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = .01). After 10 years, the trend reversed, and BCSS outcomes worsened by 80% in patients with ILC in the SEER database (HR 1.80; P < .001). This was also seen in both the Korean Breast Cancer Registry (HR 2.79; 95% CI 1.32-5.88; P = .007) and AMCR database (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.04-4.79; P = .04). These findings remained consistent after adjusting for tumor characteristics including age, stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and after controlling for treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, in the SEER database, the histologic type exerted a statistically significant time-dependent association with BCSS, with ILC showing decreasing BCSS over time (time interaction HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.78-2.10; P < .001). Furthermore, on annual hazard function analysis, the ILC annual peak event of BCSS occurred 5 years after diagnosis, whereas the IDC recurrence events peaked at 5 years before diagnosis, suggesting a higher late recurrence rate for ILC. These findings may have implications on the duration of endocrine therapy used in these patients given concern for worse long-term outcomes in premenopausal patients with ILC.

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic mechanism for patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who have developed resistance to other endocrine therapies. Two of these agents, elacestrant and camizestrant, have demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in these populations, particularly in tumors with ESR1 mutations. The efficacy of these agents in tumors with ESR1 wild-type subgroup remains uncertain. A meta-analysis by Wong and colleagues of individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD, and SERENA-2) included 1290 patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer who received oral SERD or endocrine therapies (ET) of the physician's choice. In the overall cohort, oral SERD showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with ET of the physician's choice (HR 0.783; 95% CI 0.681-0.900; P < .001). This was also noted in the subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations (HR 0.557; 95% CI 0.440-0.705; P < .001); although no significant PFS benefit was observed with oral SERD in the ESR1 wild-type subgroup (HR 0.944; 95% CI 0.783-1.138; P = .543). These results suggest that the PFS benefit observed with oral SERD is mainly seen in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, and, therefore, these drugs should be prescribed accordingly.

Additional Reference

1. Cold S, Cold F, Jensen M-B, et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1347–1354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Prior studies show inconsistent outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and data in premenopausal women is limited. The retrospective cohort study by Yoon and colleagues analyzed the data from three databases and included 225,938 premenopausal women with stage I-III ILC or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in their study to evaluate survival trends in young women with ILC. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with ILC vs IDC showed superior breast cancer severity score (BCSS) outcomes during the first 10 years after diagnosis (HR 0.73; P < .001); similar results were seen in the Asan Medical Center Research (AMCR) database (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = .01). After 10 years, the trend reversed, and BCSS outcomes worsened by 80% in patients with ILC in the SEER database (HR 1.80; P < .001). This was also seen in both the Korean Breast Cancer Registry (HR 2.79; 95% CI 1.32-5.88; P = .007) and AMCR database (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.04-4.79; P = .04). These findings remained consistent after adjusting for tumor characteristics including age, stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and after controlling for treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, in the SEER database, the histologic type exerted a statistically significant time-dependent association with BCSS, with ILC showing decreasing BCSS over time (time interaction HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.78-2.10; P < .001). Furthermore, on annual hazard function analysis, the ILC annual peak event of BCSS occurred 5 years after diagnosis, whereas the IDC recurrence events peaked at 5 years before diagnosis, suggesting a higher late recurrence rate for ILC. These findings may have implications on the duration of endocrine therapy used in these patients given concern for worse long-term outcomes in premenopausal patients with ILC.

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic mechanism for patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who have developed resistance to other endocrine therapies. Two of these agents, elacestrant and camizestrant, have demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in these populations, particularly in tumors with ESR1 mutations. The efficacy of these agents in tumors with ESR1 wild-type subgroup remains uncertain. A meta-analysis by Wong and colleagues of individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD, and SERENA-2) included 1290 patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer who received oral SERD or endocrine therapies (ET) of the physician's choice. In the overall cohort, oral SERD showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with ET of the physician's choice (HR 0.783; 95% CI 0.681-0.900; P < .001). This was also noted in the subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations (HR 0.557; 95% CI 0.440-0.705; P < .001); although no significant PFS benefit was observed with oral SERD in the ESR1 wild-type subgroup (HR 0.944; 95% CI 0.783-1.138; P = .543). These results suggest that the PFS benefit observed with oral SERD is mainly seen in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, and, therefore, these drugs should be prescribed accordingly.

Additional Reference

1. Cold S, Cold F, Jensen M-B, et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1347–1354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Key clinical point: Findings from this real-world study identified the protective and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had no COVID-19 infection and received the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Major finding: Older patients who were age > 50 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.38; P = .004) and patients receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (aHR 0.52; P = .021) had a significantly lower risk for BI, whereas patients receiving anti-interleukin 6 receptor (aHR 2.01; P = 0.039) and anti-CD20 (aHR 2.88; P = .011) treatments had ~2 and ~3 times higher risks for BI, respectively.

Study details: This prospective study included participants who had never been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and had received three doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, of whom 194 had RA and 1002 were control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Picchianti-Diamanti A et al. Older age, a high titre of neutralising antibodies and therapy with conventional DMARDs are associated with protection from breakthrough infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients after the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccines. 2023;11(11):1684 (Nov 2). doi: 10.3390/vaccines11111684

Key clinical point: Findings from this real-world study identified the protective and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had no COVID-19 infection and received the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Major finding: Older patients who were age > 50 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.38; P = .004) and patients receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (aHR 0.52; P = .021) had a significantly lower risk for BI, whereas patients receiving anti-interleukin 6 receptor (aHR 2.01; P = 0.039) and anti-CD20 (aHR 2.88; P = .011) treatments had ~2 and ~3 times higher risks for BI, respectively.

Study details: This prospective study included participants who had never been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and had received three doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, of whom 194 had RA and 1002 were control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Picchianti-Diamanti A et al. Older age, a high titre of neutralising antibodies and therapy with conventional DMARDs are associated with protection from breakthrough infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients after the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccines. 2023;11(11):1684 (Nov 2). doi: 10.3390/vaccines11111684

Key clinical point: Findings from this real-world study identified the protective and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had no COVID-19 infection and received the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Major finding: Older patients who were age > 50 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.38; P = .004) and patients receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (aHR 0.52; P = .021) had a significantly lower risk for BI, whereas patients receiving anti-interleukin 6 receptor (aHR 2.01; P = 0.039) and anti-CD20 (aHR 2.88; P = .011) treatments had ~2 and ~3 times higher risks for BI, respectively.

Study details: This prospective study included participants who had never been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and had received three doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, of whom 194 had RA and 1002 were control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Picchianti-Diamanti A et al. Older age, a high titre of neutralising antibodies and therapy with conventional DMARDs are associated with protection from breakthrough infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients after the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccines. 2023;11(11):1684 (Nov 2). doi: 10.3390/vaccines11111684

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher frequency of adverse events (AE) with methotrexate + tociluzumab vs methotrexate + active conventional treatment (ACT), which restricted their ability to tolerate the target dose of 25 mg methotrexate per week.

Major finding: The risk for methotrexate-associated AE was significantly higher (hazard ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.20-1.84) and the proportion of patients able to tolerate 25 mg methotrexate per week at 24 weeks was significantly lower (odds ratio 0.25; P < .001) in the methotrexate + tocilizumab vs methotrexate + ACT group. However, the risks for methotrexate-associated AE were comparable for methotrexate  +ACT and the combinations of methotrexate with other biologics like certolizumab-pegol or abatacept.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 NORD-STAR trial included 812 treatment-naive patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lend K et al. Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1002/art.42730

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher frequency of adverse events (AE) with methotrexate + tociluzumab vs methotrexate + active conventional treatment (ACT), which restricted their ability to tolerate the target dose of 25 mg methotrexate per week.

Major finding: The risk for methotrexate-associated AE was significantly higher (hazard ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.20-1.84) and the proportion of patients able to tolerate 25 mg methotrexate per week at 24 weeks was significantly lower (odds ratio 0.25; P < .001) in the methotrexate + tocilizumab vs methotrexate + ACT group. However, the risks for methotrexate-associated AE were comparable for methotrexate  +ACT and the combinations of methotrexate with other biologics like certolizumab-pegol or abatacept.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 NORD-STAR trial included 812 treatment-naive patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lend K et al. Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1002/art.42730

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher frequency of adverse events (AE) with methotrexate + tociluzumab vs methotrexate + active conventional treatment (ACT), which restricted their ability to tolerate the target dose of 25 mg methotrexate per week.

Major finding: The risk for methotrexate-associated AE was significantly higher (hazard ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.20-1.84) and the proportion of patients able to tolerate 25 mg methotrexate per week at 24 weeks was significantly lower (odds ratio 0.25; P < .001) in the methotrexate + tocilizumab vs methotrexate + ACT group. However, the risks for methotrexate-associated AE were comparable for methotrexate  +ACT and the combinations of methotrexate with other biologics like certolizumab-pegol or abatacept.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 NORD-STAR trial included 812 treatment-naive patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lend K et al. Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1002/art.42730

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved disease remission and sustained it for 10 years had significantly lower structural progression and functional impairment than those who continued to have low disease activity (LDA).

Major finding: Patients with sustained remission vs sustained LDA had significantly lower mean 10-year structural progression (van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score 4.06 vs 14.59; P < .001) and 10-year functional impairment (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index 0.14 vs 0.53; P < .001) scores.

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 252 patients with early RA from the ESPOIR cohort, of whom 48 patients were in sustained remission and 135 patients had sustained LDA.

Disclosures: The ESPOIR cohort was supported by grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ruyssen-Witrand A et al. Ten-year radiographic and functional outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients in remission compared to patients in low disease activity. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:207 (Oct 20). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03176-7

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved disease remission and sustained it for 10 years had significantly lower structural progression and functional impairment than those who continued to have low disease activity (LDA).

Major finding: Patients with sustained remission vs sustained LDA had significantly lower mean 10-year structural progression (van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score 4.06 vs 14.59; P < .001) and 10-year functional impairment (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index 0.14 vs 0.53; P < .001) scores.

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 252 patients with early RA from the ESPOIR cohort, of whom 48 patients were in sustained remission and 135 patients had sustained LDA.

Disclosures: The ESPOIR cohort was supported by grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ruyssen-Witrand A et al. Ten-year radiographic and functional outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients in remission compared to patients in low disease activity. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:207 (Oct 20). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03176-7

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved disease remission and sustained it for 10 years had significantly lower structural progression and functional impairment than those who continued to have low disease activity (LDA).

Major finding: Patients with sustained remission vs sustained LDA had significantly lower mean 10-year structural progression (van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score 4.06 vs 14.59; P < .001) and 10-year functional impairment (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index 0.14 vs 0.53; P < .001) scores.

Study details: This study analyzed the data of 252 patients with early RA from the ESPOIR cohort, of whom 48 patients were in sustained remission and 135 patients had sustained LDA.

Disclosures: The ESPOIR cohort was supported by grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ruyssen-Witrand A et al. Ten-year radiographic and functional outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients in remission compared to patients in low disease activity. Arthritis Res Ther. 2023;25:207 (Oct 20). doi: 10.1186/s13075-023-03176-7

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increased the prevalence of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in participants with a history of smoking, which in turn led to a significant increase in the mortality rate.

Major finding: ILA were ~4 times more prevalent in individuals with a history of smoking who did vs did not have RA (adjusted odds ratio 4.15; 95% CI 2.17-7.97). Among patients with RA and a record of smoking, mortality risk was ~3 times higher in those with ILA or indeterminate ILA findings vs those without ILA (adjusted hazard ratio 2.86; 95% CI 1.33-6.16).

Study details: This cross-sectional prospective study included participants with a current or past history of smoking from the COPDGene cohort, of whom 83 participants had RA and were compared with 8725 individuals without RA.

Disclosures: COPDGene was supported by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others. Several authors declared receiving consulting fees, grant support, research support, or having other ties with various sources.

Source: McDermott GC et al. Prevalence and mortality associations of interstitial lung abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis within a multicentre prospective cohort of smokers. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023;62(SI3):SI286-SI295 (Oct 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead277

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increased the prevalence of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in participants with a history of smoking, which in turn led to a significant increase in the mortality rate.

Major finding: ILA were ~4 times more prevalent in individuals with a history of smoking who did vs did not have RA (adjusted odds ratio 4.15; 95% CI 2.17-7.97). Among patients with RA and a record of smoking, mortality risk was ~3 times higher in those with ILA or indeterminate ILA findings vs those without ILA (adjusted hazard ratio 2.86; 95% CI 1.33-6.16).

Study details: This cross-sectional prospective study included participants with a current or past history of smoking from the COPDGene cohort, of whom 83 participants had RA and were compared with 8725 individuals without RA.

Disclosures: COPDGene was supported by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others. Several authors declared receiving consulting fees, grant support, research support, or having other ties with various sources.

Source: McDermott GC et al. Prevalence and mortality associations of interstitial lung abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis within a multicentre prospective cohort of smokers. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023;62(SI3):SI286-SI295 (Oct 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead277

Key clinical point: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increased the prevalence of interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) in participants with a history of smoking, which in turn led to a significant increase in the mortality rate.

Major finding: ILA were ~4 times more prevalent in individuals with a history of smoking who did vs did not have RA (adjusted odds ratio 4.15; 95% CI 2.17-7.97). Among patients with RA and a record of smoking, mortality risk was ~3 times higher in those with ILA or indeterminate ILA findings vs those without ILA (adjusted hazard ratio 2.86; 95% CI 1.33-6.16).

Study details: This cross-sectional prospective study included participants with a current or past history of smoking from the COPDGene cohort, of whom 83 participants had RA and were compared with 8725 individuals without RA.

Disclosures: COPDGene was supported by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others. Several authors declared receiving consulting fees, grant support, research support, or having other ties with various sources.

Source: McDermott GC et al. Prevalence and mortality associations of interstitial lung abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis within a multicentre prospective cohort of smokers. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023;62(SI3):SI286-SI295 (Oct 23). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead277