User login
First referral guide issued for axial spondyloarthritis
SAN DIEGO – The Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) has created the first referral recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The draft recommendations use a points scoring system, with the goal that at least one in three patients referred would be diagnosed with axSpA, an inflammatory arthritis that affects the central skeleton and shares a genetic overlap with skin psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and inflammatory eye disease.
Patients with axSpA can wait 10 years after symptom onset to be diagnosed with the condition. There are currently no guidelines to advise clinicians on when to refer to a rheumatologist, and with the rheumatology workforce shortage, “it is impossible for rheumatologists to evaluate the 20% of adults in the U.S. who have chronic back pain,” said Maureen Dubreuil, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston University. She presented the work at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
To address this issue, Dr. Dubreuil and colleagues conducted a literature review to determine how predictive different spondyloarthritis features were of eventual axSpA diagnosis. The interdisciplinary team identified 38 studies published before March 2022, and uncovered 28 individual potential features associated with axSpA, including pain sites, family history of axSpA and related conditions, blood markers of inflammation, genetic testing, and imaging findings.
Inflammatory back pain elements had the lower predictive values, with positive likelihood ratios (LR+) ranging from 1.15 to 2.32, while imaging findings were the most predictive (LR+s from 6.40 to 10.02).
Using a Delphi exercise and discrete choice experiments, members narrowed the checklist down to 10 features. These 10 features were assigned points, with a score of 3 points qualifying for a referral of adults 45 years or younger with chronic pain (3 or more months) in the back, hip, or buttock.
Sacroiliitis seen on imaging, either by x-ray or MRI, received the highest score of 3 points. Dr. Dubreuil emphasized that imaging was not required for a referral, but if a patient has received imaging “that shows sacroiliitis, that is sufficient for referral to a rheumatologist,” she said in her presentation.
Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, HLA-B27 positivity, and uveitis score 2 points. Inflammatory bowel disease; psoriasis; back pain with good response to NSAIDs; back pain improvement with exercise and not with rest; alternating buttock pain; and family history of axial spondyloarthritis, uveitis, psoriasis, or IBD score 1 point.
Dr. Dubreuil and colleagues expect that these criteria for referral will result in about one in three referred adults aged 45 years or younger with chronic back pain being diagnosed with axSpA. They also say additional research is necessary to understand if these recommendations increase probability of axSpA diagnosis and reduce diagnostic delays.
“We’re now getting to the stage where we are creating this screening tool, but [testing the] performance of the screening tool is going to be the major next step,” said Mark Hwang, MD, of UTHealth Houston in an interview with this news organization. He is a member of SPARTAN but was not involved with authoring the recommendations. “Will the screening tool enhance the ability on the back end to identify axSpA? We don’t know yet.”
Jon Chan, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, agreed that these recommendations “are a good first step,” but that more awareness about axSpA from nonrheumatologists would also be helpful in identifying new axSpA patients. He is also a member of SPARTAN and comoderated with Dr. Hwang the session where the new recommendations were presented. “I think other diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or lupus have a lot more recognition in the nonrheumatology community,” he told this news organization.
Connecting with other health professionals who see a lot of patients with back pain – physiotherapists, chiropractors, and chronic pain physicians – could also be helpful, he added. “A lot of times, patients go straight to a physio and circumvent the doctor,” he said.
Dr. Chan reports success in educating other departments. “I put up a poster in the emergency department saying, ‘If you’re young with back pain and uveitis, you need to be seen by rheumatology,’ and we’ve identified a ton of axSpA patients that way,” he said. “Maybe their uveitis was very mild, but their back pain was quite severe, and no one really clued in.”
Dr. Dubreuil disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. Her abstract coauthors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hwang consults for UCB and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Chan has relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.
SAN DIEGO – The Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) has created the first referral recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The draft recommendations use a points scoring system, with the goal that at least one in three patients referred would be diagnosed with axSpA, an inflammatory arthritis that affects the central skeleton and shares a genetic overlap with skin psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and inflammatory eye disease.
Patients with axSpA can wait 10 years after symptom onset to be diagnosed with the condition. There are currently no guidelines to advise clinicians on when to refer to a rheumatologist, and with the rheumatology workforce shortage, “it is impossible for rheumatologists to evaluate the 20% of adults in the U.S. who have chronic back pain,” said Maureen Dubreuil, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston University. She presented the work at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
To address this issue, Dr. Dubreuil and colleagues conducted a literature review to determine how predictive different spondyloarthritis features were of eventual axSpA diagnosis. The interdisciplinary team identified 38 studies published before March 2022, and uncovered 28 individual potential features associated with axSpA, including pain sites, family history of axSpA and related conditions, blood markers of inflammation, genetic testing, and imaging findings.
Inflammatory back pain elements had the lower predictive values, with positive likelihood ratios (LR+) ranging from 1.15 to 2.32, while imaging findings were the most predictive (LR+s from 6.40 to 10.02).
Using a Delphi exercise and discrete choice experiments, members narrowed the checklist down to 10 features. These 10 features were assigned points, with a score of 3 points qualifying for a referral of adults 45 years or younger with chronic pain (3 or more months) in the back, hip, or buttock.
Sacroiliitis seen on imaging, either by x-ray or MRI, received the highest score of 3 points. Dr. Dubreuil emphasized that imaging was not required for a referral, but if a patient has received imaging “that shows sacroiliitis, that is sufficient for referral to a rheumatologist,” she said in her presentation.
Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, HLA-B27 positivity, and uveitis score 2 points. Inflammatory bowel disease; psoriasis; back pain with good response to NSAIDs; back pain improvement with exercise and not with rest; alternating buttock pain; and family history of axial spondyloarthritis, uveitis, psoriasis, or IBD score 1 point.
Dr. Dubreuil and colleagues expect that these criteria for referral will result in about one in three referred adults aged 45 years or younger with chronic back pain being diagnosed with axSpA. They also say additional research is necessary to understand if these recommendations increase probability of axSpA diagnosis and reduce diagnostic delays.
“We’re now getting to the stage where we are creating this screening tool, but [testing the] performance of the screening tool is going to be the major next step,” said Mark Hwang, MD, of UTHealth Houston in an interview with this news organization. He is a member of SPARTAN but was not involved with authoring the recommendations. “Will the screening tool enhance the ability on the back end to identify axSpA? We don’t know yet.”
Jon Chan, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, agreed that these recommendations “are a good first step,” but that more awareness about axSpA from nonrheumatologists would also be helpful in identifying new axSpA patients. He is also a member of SPARTAN and comoderated with Dr. Hwang the session where the new recommendations were presented. “I think other diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or lupus have a lot more recognition in the nonrheumatology community,” he told this news organization.
Connecting with other health professionals who see a lot of patients with back pain – physiotherapists, chiropractors, and chronic pain physicians – could also be helpful, he added. “A lot of times, patients go straight to a physio and circumvent the doctor,” he said.
Dr. Chan reports success in educating other departments. “I put up a poster in the emergency department saying, ‘If you’re young with back pain and uveitis, you need to be seen by rheumatology,’ and we’ve identified a ton of axSpA patients that way,” he said. “Maybe their uveitis was very mild, but their back pain was quite severe, and no one really clued in.”
Dr. Dubreuil disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. Her abstract coauthors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hwang consults for UCB and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Chan has relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.
SAN DIEGO – The Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) has created the first referral recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
The draft recommendations use a points scoring system, with the goal that at least one in three patients referred would be diagnosed with axSpA, an inflammatory arthritis that affects the central skeleton and shares a genetic overlap with skin psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and inflammatory eye disease.
Patients with axSpA can wait 10 years after symptom onset to be diagnosed with the condition. There are currently no guidelines to advise clinicians on when to refer to a rheumatologist, and with the rheumatology workforce shortage, “it is impossible for rheumatologists to evaluate the 20% of adults in the U.S. who have chronic back pain,” said Maureen Dubreuil, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston University. She presented the work at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
To address this issue, Dr. Dubreuil and colleagues conducted a literature review to determine how predictive different spondyloarthritis features were of eventual axSpA diagnosis. The interdisciplinary team identified 38 studies published before March 2022, and uncovered 28 individual potential features associated with axSpA, including pain sites, family history of axSpA and related conditions, blood markers of inflammation, genetic testing, and imaging findings.
Inflammatory back pain elements had the lower predictive values, with positive likelihood ratios (LR+) ranging from 1.15 to 2.32, while imaging findings were the most predictive (LR+s from 6.40 to 10.02).
Using a Delphi exercise and discrete choice experiments, members narrowed the checklist down to 10 features. These 10 features were assigned points, with a score of 3 points qualifying for a referral of adults 45 years or younger with chronic pain (3 or more months) in the back, hip, or buttock.
Sacroiliitis seen on imaging, either by x-ray or MRI, received the highest score of 3 points. Dr. Dubreuil emphasized that imaging was not required for a referral, but if a patient has received imaging “that shows sacroiliitis, that is sufficient for referral to a rheumatologist,” she said in her presentation.
Elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein, HLA-B27 positivity, and uveitis score 2 points. Inflammatory bowel disease; psoriasis; back pain with good response to NSAIDs; back pain improvement with exercise and not with rest; alternating buttock pain; and family history of axial spondyloarthritis, uveitis, psoriasis, or IBD score 1 point.
Dr. Dubreuil and colleagues expect that these criteria for referral will result in about one in three referred adults aged 45 years or younger with chronic back pain being diagnosed with axSpA. They also say additional research is necessary to understand if these recommendations increase probability of axSpA diagnosis and reduce diagnostic delays.
“We’re now getting to the stage where we are creating this screening tool, but [testing the] performance of the screening tool is going to be the major next step,” said Mark Hwang, MD, of UTHealth Houston in an interview with this news organization. He is a member of SPARTAN but was not involved with authoring the recommendations. “Will the screening tool enhance the ability on the back end to identify axSpA? We don’t know yet.”
Jon Chan, MD, a rheumatologist at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, agreed that these recommendations “are a good first step,” but that more awareness about axSpA from nonrheumatologists would also be helpful in identifying new axSpA patients. He is also a member of SPARTAN and comoderated with Dr. Hwang the session where the new recommendations were presented. “I think other diseases like rheumatoid arthritis or lupus have a lot more recognition in the nonrheumatology community,” he told this news organization.
Connecting with other health professionals who see a lot of patients with back pain – physiotherapists, chiropractors, and chronic pain physicians – could also be helpful, he added. “A lot of times, patients go straight to a physio and circumvent the doctor,” he said.
Dr. Chan reports success in educating other departments. “I put up a poster in the emergency department saying, ‘If you’re young with back pain and uveitis, you need to be seen by rheumatology,’ and we’ve identified a ton of axSpA patients that way,” he said. “Maybe their uveitis was very mild, but their back pain was quite severe, and no one really clued in.”
Dr. Dubreuil disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. Her abstract coauthors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hwang consults for UCB and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Chan has relationships with AbbVie/Abbott, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB.
AT ACR 2023
TNF blockers not associated with poorer pregnancy outcomes
SAN DIEGO – Continuing a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) during pregnancy does not increase risk of worse fetal or obstetric outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Patients who continued a TNFi also had fewer severe infections requiring hospitalization, compared with those who stopped taking the medication during their pregnancy.
“The main message is that patients continuing were not doing worse than the patients stopping. It’s an important clinical message for rheumatologists who are not really confident in dealing with these drugs during pregnancy,” said Anna Moltó, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital, Paris, who led the research. “It adds to the data that it seems to be safe,” she added in an interview.
Previous research, largely from pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease, suggests that taking a TNFi during pregnancy is safe, and 2020 ACR guidelines conditionally recommend continuing therapy prior to and during pregnancy; however, many people still stop taking the drugs during pregnancy for fear of potentially harming the fetus.
To better understand how TNFi use affected pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Moltó and colleagues analyzed data from a French nationwide health insurance database to identify adult women with chronic rheumatic inflammatory disease. All women included in the cohort had a singleton pregnancy between 2008 and 2017 and were taking a TNFi upon pregnancy diagnosis.
Patients who restarted TNFi after initially pausing because of pregnancy were included in the continuation group.
Researchers identified more than 2,000 pregnancies, including 1,503 in individuals with spondyloarthritis and 579 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were, on average, 31 years old and were diagnosed with a rheumatic disease 4 years prior to their pregnancy.
About 72% (n = 1,497) discontinued TNFi after learning they were pregnant, and 584 individuals continued treatment. Dr. Moltó noted that data from more recent years might have captured lower discontinuation rates among pregnant individuals, but those data were not available for the study.
There was no difference in unfavorable obstetrical or infant outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, major congenital malformation, and severe infection of the infant requiring hospitalization. Somewhat surprisingly, the data showed that women who discontinued a TNFi were more likely to be hospitalized for infection either during their pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after delivery, compared with those who continued therapy (1.3% vs. 0.2%, respectively).
Dr. Moltó is currently looking into what could be behind this counterintuitive result, but she hypothesizes that patients who had stopped TNFi may have been taking more glucocorticoids.
“At our institution, there is generally a comfort level with continuing TNF inhibitors during pregnancy, at least until about 36 weeks,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Sometimes, there is concern for risk of infection to the infant, depending on the type of TNFi being used, she added during a press conference.
“I think that these are really informative and supportive data to let women know that they probably have a really good chance of doing very well during the pregnancy if they continue” their TNFi, said Dr. Tedeschi, who was not involved with the study.
TNF discontinuation on the decline
In a related study, researchers at McGill University, Montreal, found that TNFi discontinuation prior to pregnancy had decreased over time in individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases.
Using a database of U.S. insurance claims, they identified 3,372 women with RA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who previously used a TNFi and gave birth between 2011 and 2019. A patient was considered to have used a TNFi if she had filled a prescription or had an infusion procedure insurance claim within 12 weeks before the gestational period or anytime during pregnancy. Researchers did not have time-specific data to account for women who stopped treatment at pregnancy diagnosis.
Nearly half (47%) of all identified pregnancies were in individuals with IBD, and the rest included patients with RA (24%), psoriasis or PsA (16%), AS (3%), or more than one diagnosis (10%).
In total, 14% of women discontinued TNFi use in the 12 weeks before becoming pregnant and did not restart. From 2011 to 2013, 19% of patients stopped their TNFi, but this proportion decreased overtime, with 10% of patients stopping therapy from 2017 to 2019 (P < .0001).
This decline “possibly reflects the increase in real-world evidence about the safety of TNFi in pregnancy. That research, in turn, led to new guidelines recommending the continuation of TNFi during pregnancy,” first author Leah Flatman, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill, said in an interview. “I think we can see this potentially as good news.”
More patients with RA, psoriasis/PsA, and AS discontinued TNFi therapy prior to conception (23%-25%), compared with those with IBD (5%).
Ms. Flatman noted that her study and Moltó’s study complement each other by providing data on individuals stopping TNFi prior to conception versus those stopping treatment after pregnancy diagnosis.
“These findings demonstrate that continuing TNFi during pregnancy appears not to be associated with an increase in adverse obstetrical or infant outcomes,” Ms. Flatman said of Dr. Moltó’s study. “As guidelines currently recommend continuing TNFi, studies like this help demonstrate that the guideline changes do not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events.”
Dr. Moltó and Ms. Flatman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – Continuing a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) during pregnancy does not increase risk of worse fetal or obstetric outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Patients who continued a TNFi also had fewer severe infections requiring hospitalization, compared with those who stopped taking the medication during their pregnancy.
“The main message is that patients continuing were not doing worse than the patients stopping. It’s an important clinical message for rheumatologists who are not really confident in dealing with these drugs during pregnancy,” said Anna Moltó, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital, Paris, who led the research. “It adds to the data that it seems to be safe,” she added in an interview.
Previous research, largely from pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease, suggests that taking a TNFi during pregnancy is safe, and 2020 ACR guidelines conditionally recommend continuing therapy prior to and during pregnancy; however, many people still stop taking the drugs during pregnancy for fear of potentially harming the fetus.
To better understand how TNFi use affected pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Moltó and colleagues analyzed data from a French nationwide health insurance database to identify adult women with chronic rheumatic inflammatory disease. All women included in the cohort had a singleton pregnancy between 2008 and 2017 and were taking a TNFi upon pregnancy diagnosis.
Patients who restarted TNFi after initially pausing because of pregnancy were included in the continuation group.
Researchers identified more than 2,000 pregnancies, including 1,503 in individuals with spondyloarthritis and 579 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were, on average, 31 years old and were diagnosed with a rheumatic disease 4 years prior to their pregnancy.
About 72% (n = 1,497) discontinued TNFi after learning they were pregnant, and 584 individuals continued treatment. Dr. Moltó noted that data from more recent years might have captured lower discontinuation rates among pregnant individuals, but those data were not available for the study.
There was no difference in unfavorable obstetrical or infant outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, major congenital malformation, and severe infection of the infant requiring hospitalization. Somewhat surprisingly, the data showed that women who discontinued a TNFi were more likely to be hospitalized for infection either during their pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after delivery, compared with those who continued therapy (1.3% vs. 0.2%, respectively).
Dr. Moltó is currently looking into what could be behind this counterintuitive result, but she hypothesizes that patients who had stopped TNFi may have been taking more glucocorticoids.
“At our institution, there is generally a comfort level with continuing TNF inhibitors during pregnancy, at least until about 36 weeks,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Sometimes, there is concern for risk of infection to the infant, depending on the type of TNFi being used, she added during a press conference.
“I think that these are really informative and supportive data to let women know that they probably have a really good chance of doing very well during the pregnancy if they continue” their TNFi, said Dr. Tedeschi, who was not involved with the study.
TNF discontinuation on the decline
In a related study, researchers at McGill University, Montreal, found that TNFi discontinuation prior to pregnancy had decreased over time in individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases.
Using a database of U.S. insurance claims, they identified 3,372 women with RA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who previously used a TNFi and gave birth between 2011 and 2019. A patient was considered to have used a TNFi if she had filled a prescription or had an infusion procedure insurance claim within 12 weeks before the gestational period or anytime during pregnancy. Researchers did not have time-specific data to account for women who stopped treatment at pregnancy diagnosis.
Nearly half (47%) of all identified pregnancies were in individuals with IBD, and the rest included patients with RA (24%), psoriasis or PsA (16%), AS (3%), or more than one diagnosis (10%).
In total, 14% of women discontinued TNFi use in the 12 weeks before becoming pregnant and did not restart. From 2011 to 2013, 19% of patients stopped their TNFi, but this proportion decreased overtime, with 10% of patients stopping therapy from 2017 to 2019 (P < .0001).
This decline “possibly reflects the increase in real-world evidence about the safety of TNFi in pregnancy. That research, in turn, led to new guidelines recommending the continuation of TNFi during pregnancy,” first author Leah Flatman, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill, said in an interview. “I think we can see this potentially as good news.”
More patients with RA, psoriasis/PsA, and AS discontinued TNFi therapy prior to conception (23%-25%), compared with those with IBD (5%).
Ms. Flatman noted that her study and Moltó’s study complement each other by providing data on individuals stopping TNFi prior to conception versus those stopping treatment after pregnancy diagnosis.
“These findings demonstrate that continuing TNFi during pregnancy appears not to be associated with an increase in adverse obstetrical or infant outcomes,” Ms. Flatman said of Dr. Moltó’s study. “As guidelines currently recommend continuing TNFi, studies like this help demonstrate that the guideline changes do not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events.”
Dr. Moltó and Ms. Flatman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – Continuing a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) during pregnancy does not increase risk of worse fetal or obstetric outcomes, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Patients who continued a TNFi also had fewer severe infections requiring hospitalization, compared with those who stopped taking the medication during their pregnancy.
“The main message is that patients continuing were not doing worse than the patients stopping. It’s an important clinical message for rheumatologists who are not really confident in dealing with these drugs during pregnancy,” said Anna Moltó, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Cochin Hospital, Paris, who led the research. “It adds to the data that it seems to be safe,” she added in an interview.
Previous research, largely from pregnant patients with inflammatory bowel disease, suggests that taking a TNFi during pregnancy is safe, and 2020 ACR guidelines conditionally recommend continuing therapy prior to and during pregnancy; however, many people still stop taking the drugs during pregnancy for fear of potentially harming the fetus.
To better understand how TNFi use affected pregnancy outcomes, Dr. Moltó and colleagues analyzed data from a French nationwide health insurance database to identify adult women with chronic rheumatic inflammatory disease. All women included in the cohort had a singleton pregnancy between 2008 and 2017 and were taking a TNFi upon pregnancy diagnosis.
Patients who restarted TNFi after initially pausing because of pregnancy were included in the continuation group.
Researchers identified more than 2,000 pregnancies, including 1,503 in individuals with spondyloarthritis and 579 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were, on average, 31 years old and were diagnosed with a rheumatic disease 4 years prior to their pregnancy.
About 72% (n = 1,497) discontinued TNFi after learning they were pregnant, and 584 individuals continued treatment. Dr. Moltó noted that data from more recent years might have captured lower discontinuation rates among pregnant individuals, but those data were not available for the study.
There was no difference in unfavorable obstetrical or infant outcomes, including spontaneous abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, major congenital malformation, and severe infection of the infant requiring hospitalization. Somewhat surprisingly, the data showed that women who discontinued a TNFi were more likely to be hospitalized for infection either during their pregnancy or up to 6 weeks after delivery, compared with those who continued therapy (1.3% vs. 0.2%, respectively).
Dr. Moltó is currently looking into what could be behind this counterintuitive result, but she hypothesizes that patients who had stopped TNFi may have been taking more glucocorticoids.
“At our institution, there is generally a comfort level with continuing TNF inhibitors during pregnancy, at least until about 36 weeks,” said Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Sometimes, there is concern for risk of infection to the infant, depending on the type of TNFi being used, she added during a press conference.
“I think that these are really informative and supportive data to let women know that they probably have a really good chance of doing very well during the pregnancy if they continue” their TNFi, said Dr. Tedeschi, who was not involved with the study.
TNF discontinuation on the decline
In a related study, researchers at McGill University, Montreal, found that TNFi discontinuation prior to pregnancy had decreased over time in individuals with chronic inflammatory diseases.
Using a database of U.S. insurance claims, they identified 3,372 women with RA, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and/or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who previously used a TNFi and gave birth between 2011 and 2019. A patient was considered to have used a TNFi if she had filled a prescription or had an infusion procedure insurance claim within 12 weeks before the gestational period or anytime during pregnancy. Researchers did not have time-specific data to account for women who stopped treatment at pregnancy diagnosis.
Nearly half (47%) of all identified pregnancies were in individuals with IBD, and the rest included patients with RA (24%), psoriasis or PsA (16%), AS (3%), or more than one diagnosis (10%).
In total, 14% of women discontinued TNFi use in the 12 weeks before becoming pregnant and did not restart. From 2011 to 2013, 19% of patients stopped their TNFi, but this proportion decreased overtime, with 10% of patients stopping therapy from 2017 to 2019 (P < .0001).
This decline “possibly reflects the increase in real-world evidence about the safety of TNFi in pregnancy. That research, in turn, led to new guidelines recommending the continuation of TNFi during pregnancy,” first author Leah Flatman, a PhD candidate in epidemiology at McGill, said in an interview. “I think we can see this potentially as good news.”
More patients with RA, psoriasis/PsA, and AS discontinued TNFi therapy prior to conception (23%-25%), compared with those with IBD (5%).
Ms. Flatman noted that her study and Moltó’s study complement each other by providing data on individuals stopping TNFi prior to conception versus those stopping treatment after pregnancy diagnosis.
“These findings demonstrate that continuing TNFi during pregnancy appears not to be associated with an increase in adverse obstetrical or infant outcomes,” Ms. Flatman said of Dr. Moltó’s study. “As guidelines currently recommend continuing TNFi, studies like this help demonstrate that the guideline changes do not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events.”
Dr. Moltó and Ms. Flatman disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tedeschi has worked as a consultant for Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ACR 2023
Approximately 20% of U.S. adults are diagnosed with arthritis
TOPLINE:
The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
- The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
- The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
- Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
- When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
- The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
- The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
- The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
- Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
- When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
- The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
- The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
- The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
- Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
- When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
- The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
LIMITATIONS:
The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Anemia, iron deficit common in rheumatic disease pregnancy
TOPLINE:
, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 368 pregnancies in women with rheumatic diseases during the period 2014-2022; nearly two-thirds (62%) had a connective tissue disease, 16% had rheumatoid arthritis or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 14% had spondyloarthritis, 3% had vasculitis, and 7% had other diseases.
- Patients were aged 17-44 years, with a median age of 32 years at the time of birth.
- Researchers examined the frequency of anemia and iron deficiency and the impact of anemia on adverse maternal and child outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- The prevalence of iron deficiency was 28%, 51%, and 62% in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively.
- The prevalence of anemia was 18%, 27%, and 33% in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively.
- There was an increased risk for fetal complications such as malformation, infections, small for gestational age, neonatal lupus, preterm birth, and abortion or stillbirth in association with maternal connective tissue disease (odds ratio, 2.14) and also with low maternal hemoglobin levels and maternal iron deficiency (ORs, 0.52 and 0.86, respectively).
- Lower maternal hemoglobin levels were associated with an increased risk for maternal complications (OR, 1.47) such as flare with adaption of rheumatic medication and pregnancy-related adverse events (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, bleeding complications, and thromboembolism), but patients with connective tissue disease had a lower risk for maternal complications (OR, 0.51); mean serum ferritin had no significant impact on maternal complications (OR, 1.02).
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients with rheumatic diseases suffer more often and already in early pregnancy from iron deficiency,” the researchers write. Therefore, early identification of anemia and iron deficiency in this population could inform prepregnancy counseling.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Ann-Christin Pecher, MD, of University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. The study was published online in Joint Bone Spine.
LIMITATIONS:
The findings were limited by the use of a single dataset that might not be representative of all pregnant patients with rheumatic diseases. Other limitations included the lack of a standardized approach to iron supplementation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the Medical Faculty of Tübingen Clinician-Scientist to the lead author. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 368 pregnancies in women with rheumatic diseases during the period 2014-2022; nearly two-thirds (62%) had a connective tissue disease, 16% had rheumatoid arthritis or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 14% had spondyloarthritis, 3% had vasculitis, and 7% had other diseases.
- Patients were aged 17-44 years, with a median age of 32 years at the time of birth.
- Researchers examined the frequency of anemia and iron deficiency and the impact of anemia on adverse maternal and child outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- The prevalence of iron deficiency was 28%, 51%, and 62% in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively.
- The prevalence of anemia was 18%, 27%, and 33% in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively.
- There was an increased risk for fetal complications such as malformation, infections, small for gestational age, neonatal lupus, preterm birth, and abortion or stillbirth in association with maternal connective tissue disease (odds ratio, 2.14) and also with low maternal hemoglobin levels and maternal iron deficiency (ORs, 0.52 and 0.86, respectively).
- Lower maternal hemoglobin levels were associated with an increased risk for maternal complications (OR, 1.47) such as flare with adaption of rheumatic medication and pregnancy-related adverse events (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, bleeding complications, and thromboembolism), but patients with connective tissue disease had a lower risk for maternal complications (OR, 0.51); mean serum ferritin had no significant impact on maternal complications (OR, 1.02).
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients with rheumatic diseases suffer more often and already in early pregnancy from iron deficiency,” the researchers write. Therefore, early identification of anemia and iron deficiency in this population could inform prepregnancy counseling.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Ann-Christin Pecher, MD, of University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. The study was published online in Joint Bone Spine.
LIMITATIONS:
The findings were limited by the use of a single dataset that might not be representative of all pregnant patients with rheumatic diseases. Other limitations included the lack of a standardized approach to iron supplementation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the Medical Faculty of Tübingen Clinician-Scientist to the lead author. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, according to findings from a longitudinal cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from 368 pregnancies in women with rheumatic diseases during the period 2014-2022; nearly two-thirds (62%) had a connective tissue disease, 16% had rheumatoid arthritis or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, 14% had spondyloarthritis, 3% had vasculitis, and 7% had other diseases.
- Patients were aged 17-44 years, with a median age of 32 years at the time of birth.
- Researchers examined the frequency of anemia and iron deficiency and the impact of anemia on adverse maternal and child outcomes.
TAKEAWAY:
- The prevalence of iron deficiency was 28%, 51%, and 62% in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively.
- The prevalence of anemia was 18%, 27%, and 33% in the first, second, and third trimesters, respectively.
- There was an increased risk for fetal complications such as malformation, infections, small for gestational age, neonatal lupus, preterm birth, and abortion or stillbirth in association with maternal connective tissue disease (odds ratio, 2.14) and also with low maternal hemoglobin levels and maternal iron deficiency (ORs, 0.52 and 0.86, respectively).
- Lower maternal hemoglobin levels were associated with an increased risk for maternal complications (OR, 1.47) such as flare with adaption of rheumatic medication and pregnancy-related adverse events (preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, bleeding complications, and thromboembolism), but patients with connective tissue disease had a lower risk for maternal complications (OR, 0.51); mean serum ferritin had no significant impact on maternal complications (OR, 1.02).
IN PRACTICE:
“Patients with rheumatic diseases suffer more often and already in early pregnancy from iron deficiency,” the researchers write. Therefore, early identification of anemia and iron deficiency in this population could inform prepregnancy counseling.
SOURCE:
The lead author on the study was Ann-Christin Pecher, MD, of University Hospital Tübingen, Germany. The study was published online in Joint Bone Spine.
LIMITATIONS:
The findings were limited by the use of a single dataset that might not be representative of all pregnant patients with rheumatic diseases. Other limitations included the lack of a standardized approach to iron supplementation.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the Medical Faculty of Tübingen Clinician-Scientist to the lead author. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Are women and men with rheumatism treated equally?
LEIPZIG, GERMANY – Women eat more healthily, visit their physician more often, and accept offers of prophylactic treatment more frequently than their male counterparts. Nevertheless, they are generally diagnosed with a rheumatic disease much later. “With systemic sclerosis for example, diagnosis occurs a whole year later than for male patients,” said Uta Kiltz, MD, senior physician at the Ruhrgebiet Rheumatism Center in Bochum, Germany, at a press conference for the annual congress of the German Society for Rheumatology.
In addition, certain markers and antibodies can be detected earlier in men’s blood – for example in systemic sclerosis. “What’s more, women exhibit a more diverse array of symptoms, which can make an unequivocal diagnosis difficult,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Differences between the sexes in terms of disease progression and clinical presentation have been described for most rheumatic diseases. Roughly speaking, women often exhibit a much wider range of symptoms and report a higher disease burden, whereas men tend to experience a more severe progression of the disease.
Comorbidities also occur at different rates between the sexes. Whereas women with rheumatoid arthritis suffer more frequently from osteoporosis and depression, men are more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.
Gender-sensitive approach
Like Dr. Kiltz, Susanna Späthling-Mestekemper, MD, PhD, of the Munich-Pasing (Germany) Rheumatology Practice, also advocates a gender-sensitive approach to diagnosis and therapy. Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper referred to this during the conference, stating that women are still treated more poorly than men. The difference in treatment quality results from gaps in knowledge in the following areas:
- Sex-specific differences in the diagnosis and therapy of rheumatic diseases and in basic and clinical research
- Sex-specific differences in communication between male and female patients and between male and female physicians.
Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper used axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) as a “prominent example” of false diagnoses. “Men more commonly fulfill the modified New York criteria – involvement of the axial skeleton, the lumbar spine, and increasing radiological progression.”
In contrast, women with axSpA exhibit the following differences:
- It is more likely for the cervical spine to be affected.
- Women are more likely to suffer from peripheral joint involvement.
- They suffer more from whole body pain.
- They have fatigue and exhaustion.
- They exhibit fewer humoral signs of inflammation (lower C-reactive protein).
- They are rarely HLA-B27 positive.
“We also have to completely rethink how we make the diagnosis in women,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper. The current approach leads to women with axSpA being diagnosed much later than men. “Depending on the study, the difference can range from 7 months to 2 years,” according to Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
A 2018 Spanish study reported that the most common incorrect diagnoses in women with axSpA were sciatica, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia.
However, it is not just in axSpA that there are significant differences between men and women. There is evidence that women with systemic lupus erythematosus suffer more from musculoskeletal symptoms, while men with lupus exhibit more severe organ involvement (especially more serositis and nephritis).
For systemic sclerosis, women have the higher survival rate. They also exhibit skin involvement more frequently. Men, however, are more likely to have organ involvement, especially with the lungs.
TNF blockers
Using the example of axSpA, Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper also showed that men and women respond differently to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy. “The duration of therapy with TNF blockers is shorter for women: 33.4 months versus 44.9 months. They respond less to this therapy; they stop and change more frequently.”
Data from March 2023 show that, in contrast, there is no evidence of a difference in response to Janus kinase inhibitor treatment.
The presence of enthesitis has been discussed as one reason for the worse response to TNF blockers in women, since they have it more often than men do. “In fact, a better response to TNF blockers is associated with HLA-B27 positivity, with the absence of enthesitis and with TNF blocker naivety. In women, higher fat-mass index could also play a part, or even abdominal weight gain, which also increases in women after menopause,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
She mentioned the following other potential reasons for a delayed therapy response to biological drugs in women:
- Genetic, physical, or hormonal causes
- Widespread pain or fibromyalgia
- Late diagnosis or late application of therapy, which lowers the chances of remission.
Even the science itself has shown the following sex-specific shortcomings:
- Disregarding sex-specific differences in animal-experimental studies (which, until recently, were only conducted in male mice to avoid hormone fluctuations)
- Women in clinical studies are still underrepresented: only 37% of the populations in phase 3 studies are women; 64% of studies do not describe any sex-specific differences
- Most of the data come from epidemiological analyses (not from basic research)
- Gaps in medical textbooks
Communication differences
Female patients are looking for explanations, whereas male patients describe specific symptoms. Female physicians talk, while male physicians treat. They sound like stereotypes, but they have been substantiated in multiple studies, said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper. In general, the study results show that male patients behave in the following ways:
- Describe their symptoms in terms of specifics
- Do not like to admit having mental health issues
- Are three to five times more likely to commit suicide because of depression than women
On the other hand, female patients behave in the following ways:
- Look for an explanation for their symptoms
- Often do not have their physical symptoms taken seriously
- Are often pushed in a psychosomatic direction.
Female physicians focus on the following questions:
- Prevention, communication, shared decision-making, open-ended questions, “positive” discussions, patient self-management (chronic diseases such as diabetes: female physicians are better at reaching the therapy goals set by the ADA guidelines than male physicians)
- Psychosocial situations: consultations last 1 minute longer (10%).
Male physicians focus on the following questions:
- Medical history
- Physical examination (cardiac catheterizations after a heart attack are arranged much more commonly by male rather than female physicians)
- Diagnostics
Recognition and training
A large-scale surgical study in 2021 made a few waves. The study analyzed whether it makes a difference if women are operated on by men or by women. The results showed that women who had been operated on by men exhibited a higher level of risk after the surgery, compared with men who had been operated on by men or by women. The risk took the following forms:
- 15% higher risk for a worse surgery result
- 16% higher risk for complications
- 11% higher risk for repeat hospitalization
- 20% higher risk for a longer period of hospitalization
- 32% higher risk for mortality
The study authors provided the following potential reasons for these differences:
- Male physicians underestimate the severity of symptoms in their female patients
- Women are less comfortable indicating their postoperative pain to a male physician
- Different working style and treatment decisions between female and male physicians
- Unconsciously incorporated role patterns and preconceptions
“Our potential solutions are recognition and training. We need a personalized style of medicine; we need to have a closer look. We owe our male and female patients as much,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
LEIPZIG, GERMANY – Women eat more healthily, visit their physician more often, and accept offers of prophylactic treatment more frequently than their male counterparts. Nevertheless, they are generally diagnosed with a rheumatic disease much later. “With systemic sclerosis for example, diagnosis occurs a whole year later than for male patients,” said Uta Kiltz, MD, senior physician at the Ruhrgebiet Rheumatism Center in Bochum, Germany, at a press conference for the annual congress of the German Society for Rheumatology.
In addition, certain markers and antibodies can be detected earlier in men’s blood – for example in systemic sclerosis. “What’s more, women exhibit a more diverse array of symptoms, which can make an unequivocal diagnosis difficult,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Differences between the sexes in terms of disease progression and clinical presentation have been described for most rheumatic diseases. Roughly speaking, women often exhibit a much wider range of symptoms and report a higher disease burden, whereas men tend to experience a more severe progression of the disease.
Comorbidities also occur at different rates between the sexes. Whereas women with rheumatoid arthritis suffer more frequently from osteoporosis and depression, men are more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.
Gender-sensitive approach
Like Dr. Kiltz, Susanna Späthling-Mestekemper, MD, PhD, of the Munich-Pasing (Germany) Rheumatology Practice, also advocates a gender-sensitive approach to diagnosis and therapy. Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper referred to this during the conference, stating that women are still treated more poorly than men. The difference in treatment quality results from gaps in knowledge in the following areas:
- Sex-specific differences in the diagnosis and therapy of rheumatic diseases and in basic and clinical research
- Sex-specific differences in communication between male and female patients and between male and female physicians.
Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper used axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) as a “prominent example” of false diagnoses. “Men more commonly fulfill the modified New York criteria – involvement of the axial skeleton, the lumbar spine, and increasing radiological progression.”
In contrast, women with axSpA exhibit the following differences:
- It is more likely for the cervical spine to be affected.
- Women are more likely to suffer from peripheral joint involvement.
- They suffer more from whole body pain.
- They have fatigue and exhaustion.
- They exhibit fewer humoral signs of inflammation (lower C-reactive protein).
- They are rarely HLA-B27 positive.
“We also have to completely rethink how we make the diagnosis in women,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper. The current approach leads to women with axSpA being diagnosed much later than men. “Depending on the study, the difference can range from 7 months to 2 years,” according to Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
A 2018 Spanish study reported that the most common incorrect diagnoses in women with axSpA were sciatica, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia.
However, it is not just in axSpA that there are significant differences between men and women. There is evidence that women with systemic lupus erythematosus suffer more from musculoskeletal symptoms, while men with lupus exhibit more severe organ involvement (especially more serositis and nephritis).
For systemic sclerosis, women have the higher survival rate. They also exhibit skin involvement more frequently. Men, however, are more likely to have organ involvement, especially with the lungs.
TNF blockers
Using the example of axSpA, Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper also showed that men and women respond differently to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy. “The duration of therapy with TNF blockers is shorter for women: 33.4 months versus 44.9 months. They respond less to this therapy; they stop and change more frequently.”
Data from March 2023 show that, in contrast, there is no evidence of a difference in response to Janus kinase inhibitor treatment.
The presence of enthesitis has been discussed as one reason for the worse response to TNF blockers in women, since they have it more often than men do. “In fact, a better response to TNF blockers is associated with HLA-B27 positivity, with the absence of enthesitis and with TNF blocker naivety. In women, higher fat-mass index could also play a part, or even abdominal weight gain, which also increases in women after menopause,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
She mentioned the following other potential reasons for a delayed therapy response to biological drugs in women:
- Genetic, physical, or hormonal causes
- Widespread pain or fibromyalgia
- Late diagnosis or late application of therapy, which lowers the chances of remission.
Even the science itself has shown the following sex-specific shortcomings:
- Disregarding sex-specific differences in animal-experimental studies (which, until recently, were only conducted in male mice to avoid hormone fluctuations)
- Women in clinical studies are still underrepresented: only 37% of the populations in phase 3 studies are women; 64% of studies do not describe any sex-specific differences
- Most of the data come from epidemiological analyses (not from basic research)
- Gaps in medical textbooks
Communication differences
Female patients are looking for explanations, whereas male patients describe specific symptoms. Female physicians talk, while male physicians treat. They sound like stereotypes, but they have been substantiated in multiple studies, said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper. In general, the study results show that male patients behave in the following ways:
- Describe their symptoms in terms of specifics
- Do not like to admit having mental health issues
- Are three to five times more likely to commit suicide because of depression than women
On the other hand, female patients behave in the following ways:
- Look for an explanation for their symptoms
- Often do not have their physical symptoms taken seriously
- Are often pushed in a psychosomatic direction.
Female physicians focus on the following questions:
- Prevention, communication, shared decision-making, open-ended questions, “positive” discussions, patient self-management (chronic diseases such as diabetes: female physicians are better at reaching the therapy goals set by the ADA guidelines than male physicians)
- Psychosocial situations: consultations last 1 minute longer (10%).
Male physicians focus on the following questions:
- Medical history
- Physical examination (cardiac catheterizations after a heart attack are arranged much more commonly by male rather than female physicians)
- Diagnostics
Recognition and training
A large-scale surgical study in 2021 made a few waves. The study analyzed whether it makes a difference if women are operated on by men or by women. The results showed that women who had been operated on by men exhibited a higher level of risk after the surgery, compared with men who had been operated on by men or by women. The risk took the following forms:
- 15% higher risk for a worse surgery result
- 16% higher risk for complications
- 11% higher risk for repeat hospitalization
- 20% higher risk for a longer period of hospitalization
- 32% higher risk for mortality
The study authors provided the following potential reasons for these differences:
- Male physicians underestimate the severity of symptoms in their female patients
- Women are less comfortable indicating their postoperative pain to a male physician
- Different working style and treatment decisions between female and male physicians
- Unconsciously incorporated role patterns and preconceptions
“Our potential solutions are recognition and training. We need a personalized style of medicine; we need to have a closer look. We owe our male and female patients as much,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
LEIPZIG, GERMANY – Women eat more healthily, visit their physician more often, and accept offers of prophylactic treatment more frequently than their male counterparts. Nevertheless, they are generally diagnosed with a rheumatic disease much later. “With systemic sclerosis for example, diagnosis occurs a whole year later than for male patients,” said Uta Kiltz, MD, senior physician at the Ruhrgebiet Rheumatism Center in Bochum, Germany, at a press conference for the annual congress of the German Society for Rheumatology.
In addition, certain markers and antibodies can be detected earlier in men’s blood – for example in systemic sclerosis. “What’s more, women exhibit a more diverse array of symptoms, which can make an unequivocal diagnosis difficult,” Dr. Kiltz explained.
Differences between the sexes in terms of disease progression and clinical presentation have been described for most rheumatic diseases. Roughly speaking, women often exhibit a much wider range of symptoms and report a higher disease burden, whereas men tend to experience a more severe progression of the disease.
Comorbidities also occur at different rates between the sexes. Whereas women with rheumatoid arthritis suffer more frequently from osteoporosis and depression, men are more likely to develop cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.
Gender-sensitive approach
Like Dr. Kiltz, Susanna Späthling-Mestekemper, MD, PhD, of the Munich-Pasing (Germany) Rheumatology Practice, also advocates a gender-sensitive approach to diagnosis and therapy. Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper referred to this during the conference, stating that women are still treated more poorly than men. The difference in treatment quality results from gaps in knowledge in the following areas:
- Sex-specific differences in the diagnosis and therapy of rheumatic diseases and in basic and clinical research
- Sex-specific differences in communication between male and female patients and between male and female physicians.
Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper used axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) as a “prominent example” of false diagnoses. “Men more commonly fulfill the modified New York criteria – involvement of the axial skeleton, the lumbar spine, and increasing radiological progression.”
In contrast, women with axSpA exhibit the following differences:
- It is more likely for the cervical spine to be affected.
- Women are more likely to suffer from peripheral joint involvement.
- They suffer more from whole body pain.
- They have fatigue and exhaustion.
- They exhibit fewer humoral signs of inflammation (lower C-reactive protein).
- They are rarely HLA-B27 positive.
“We also have to completely rethink how we make the diagnosis in women,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper. The current approach leads to women with axSpA being diagnosed much later than men. “Depending on the study, the difference can range from 7 months to 2 years,” according to Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
A 2018 Spanish study reported that the most common incorrect diagnoses in women with axSpA were sciatica, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia.
However, it is not just in axSpA that there are significant differences between men and women. There is evidence that women with systemic lupus erythematosus suffer more from musculoskeletal symptoms, while men with lupus exhibit more severe organ involvement (especially more serositis and nephritis).
For systemic sclerosis, women have the higher survival rate. They also exhibit skin involvement more frequently. Men, however, are more likely to have organ involvement, especially with the lungs.
TNF blockers
Using the example of axSpA, Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper also showed that men and women respond differently to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy. “The duration of therapy with TNF blockers is shorter for women: 33.4 months versus 44.9 months. They respond less to this therapy; they stop and change more frequently.”
Data from March 2023 show that, in contrast, there is no evidence of a difference in response to Janus kinase inhibitor treatment.
The presence of enthesitis has been discussed as one reason for the worse response to TNF blockers in women, since they have it more often than men do. “In fact, a better response to TNF blockers is associated with HLA-B27 positivity, with the absence of enthesitis and with TNF blocker naivety. In women, higher fat-mass index could also play a part, or even abdominal weight gain, which also increases in women after menopause,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
She mentioned the following other potential reasons for a delayed therapy response to biological drugs in women:
- Genetic, physical, or hormonal causes
- Widespread pain or fibromyalgia
- Late diagnosis or late application of therapy, which lowers the chances of remission.
Even the science itself has shown the following sex-specific shortcomings:
- Disregarding sex-specific differences in animal-experimental studies (which, until recently, were only conducted in male mice to avoid hormone fluctuations)
- Women in clinical studies are still underrepresented: only 37% of the populations in phase 3 studies are women; 64% of studies do not describe any sex-specific differences
- Most of the data come from epidemiological analyses (not from basic research)
- Gaps in medical textbooks
Communication differences
Female patients are looking for explanations, whereas male patients describe specific symptoms. Female physicians talk, while male physicians treat. They sound like stereotypes, but they have been substantiated in multiple studies, said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper. In general, the study results show that male patients behave in the following ways:
- Describe their symptoms in terms of specifics
- Do not like to admit having mental health issues
- Are three to five times more likely to commit suicide because of depression than women
On the other hand, female patients behave in the following ways:
- Look for an explanation for their symptoms
- Often do not have their physical symptoms taken seriously
- Are often pushed in a psychosomatic direction.
Female physicians focus on the following questions:
- Prevention, communication, shared decision-making, open-ended questions, “positive” discussions, patient self-management (chronic diseases such as diabetes: female physicians are better at reaching the therapy goals set by the ADA guidelines than male physicians)
- Psychosocial situations: consultations last 1 minute longer (10%).
Male physicians focus on the following questions:
- Medical history
- Physical examination (cardiac catheterizations after a heart attack are arranged much more commonly by male rather than female physicians)
- Diagnostics
Recognition and training
A large-scale surgical study in 2021 made a few waves. The study analyzed whether it makes a difference if women are operated on by men or by women. The results showed that women who had been operated on by men exhibited a higher level of risk after the surgery, compared with men who had been operated on by men or by women. The risk took the following forms:
- 15% higher risk for a worse surgery result
- 16% higher risk for complications
- 11% higher risk for repeat hospitalization
- 20% higher risk for a longer period of hospitalization
- 32% higher risk for mortality
The study authors provided the following potential reasons for these differences:
- Male physicians underestimate the severity of symptoms in their female patients
- Women are less comfortable indicating their postoperative pain to a male physician
- Different working style and treatment decisions between female and male physicians
- Unconsciously incorporated role patterns and preconceptions
“Our potential solutions are recognition and training. We need a personalized style of medicine; we need to have a closer look. We owe our male and female patients as much,” said Dr. Späthling-Mestekemper.
This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE GERMAN RHEUMATOLOGY CONGRESS 2023
Intravenous formulation of secukinumab gets FDA approval
The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).
Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.
The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.
The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.
“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”
This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.
“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).
Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.
The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.
The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.
“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”
This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.
“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved an intravenous (IV) formulation of secukinumab (Cosentyx) for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA).
Secukinumab is the only treatment approved in an IV formulation that specifically targets and blocks interleukin-17A and the only non–tumor necrosis factor alpha IV option available to treat the three indications of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA, according to a press release from the drug’s manufacturer, Novartis.
The approval marks the first new IV treatment in 6 years for these three conditions. The drug was first approved in 2015 and up to now has been available only as a subcutaneous injection.
The new formulation is also approved for secukinumab’s other indications of plaque psoriasis in people aged 6 years or older, children aged 2 years or older with PsA, and enthesitis-related arthritis in patients aged 4 years or older.
“A significant portion of the millions of PsA, AS, and nr-axSpA patients in the United States require treatment through IV infusions for a variety of reasons, including not being comfortable with self-injections or simply preferring to have treatments administered in their health care provider’s office,” Philip J. Mease, MD, clinical professor at the University of Washington, Seattle, and director of rheumatology research at the Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, said in the press release. “The approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation is an important milestone for patients because it expands the treatment options available to them with a different mechanism of action than existing biologic IV therapies, along with the comfort and familiarity of an established treatment.”
This IV formulation is administered monthly in a 30-minute, weight-based dosing regimen. This new option will become available before the end of the year, Novartis said.
“With this approval of Cosentyx as an IV formulation, along with the subcutaneous formulation, we can broaden the use of Cosentyx to help more patients manage their condition with a medicine backed by more than a decade of clinical research and 8 years of real-world experience,” said Christy Siegel, vice president and head of immunology, Novartis U.S.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA approves ninth Humira biosimilar, with interchangeability
The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.
This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.
Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.
Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:
- Adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
- Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
- Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
- Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
- Adults with ulcerative colitis.
- Adults with plaque psoriasis.
- Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.
“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.
An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product.
Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.
Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.
This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.
Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.
Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:
- Adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
- Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
- Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
- Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
- Adults with ulcerative colitis.
- Adults with plaque psoriasis.
- Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.
“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.
An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product.
Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.
Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has granted an interchangeability designation to adalimumab-afzb (Abrilada), according to an announcement from Pfizer.
This is the second adalimumab biosimilar granted interchangeability. The first, adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), became available in July.
Biosimilars introduce market competition that can help lower drug prices. Adalimumab-afzb is one of nine approved biosimilars for Humira, and the last to launch in 2023.
Adalimumab-afzb is indicated for:
- Adults with rheumatoid arthritis.
- Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in patients 2 years of age and older.
- Adults with psoriatic arthritis.
- Adults with ankylosing spondylitis.
- Crohn’s disease in adults and children 6 years of age and older.
- Adults with ulcerative colitis.
- Adults with plaque psoriasis.
- Adults with hidradenitis suppurativa.
- Adults with noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis and panuveitis.
“With this designation, Abrilada is now both biosimilar to and interchangeable with Humira, reinforcing confidence among physicians and pharmacists that there is no decrease in effectiveness or increase in safety risk associated with switching between Abrilada and the reference product,” Roy Fleischmann, MD, clinical professor of medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in Pfizer’s statement.
An interchangeability designation allows pharmacists to substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without involving the prescribing clinician (according to state law). To achieve this designation, Pfizer submitted data from a phase 3 study led by Dr. Fleischmann that evaluated adalimumab-afzb in patients with RA. Patients who were switched three times between the biosimilar and the reference product had outcomes similar to those of patients continuously treated with the reference product.
Adalimumab-afzb will be available later in October at a 5% discount from Humira’s price. Later this year, the drug will launch at a second price, a 60% discount from Humira.
Full prescribing information for adalimumab-afzb is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mortality in ankylosing spondylitis: CV disease, drug abuse are big contributors
TOPLINE:
Drug use disorder increased the likelihood of in-hospital mortality more than 10-fold in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), compared with patients who did not die while hospitalized.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from 2,125 adults with AS who were hospitalized between 2015 and 2017, using the Cerner Health Facts Database.
- The final analysis included 41 patients with AS who died while hospitalized and 260 random control patients with AS who did not die.
- The mean age of the deceased patients with AS was 70 years, 85% were male, and 81% were White; 71% had hypertension, 32% had kidney disease, and 22% had congestive heart failure.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the patients with AS, cardiovascular disease was the most frequent cause of death, followed by infection, respiratory failure, and fracture/trauma in 15, 14, 8, and 7 patients, respectively. (Some patients had more than one cause of death recorded in the discharge summary.)
- The most common cardiac causes of death were myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, while the top causes of acute respiratory failure were pneumonia and pulmonary embolism.
- Drug abuse, including opioid dependence, was significantly associated with death among hospitalized patients with AS (adjusted odds ratio, 10.9; P = .001).
- Heart failure and kidney disease were the comorbidities most strongly associated with mortality; the odds of death in the presence of heart failure rose 2.76-fold, and it increased 2.46-fold in the presence of kidney disease.
IN PRACTICE:
Underlying comorbidities, especially cardiac and renal, are associated with mortality in AS, and patients should be screened early on for these comorbidities to help reduce the odds of death.
SOURCE:
First author Mohamad Bittar, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Rheumatology).
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked AS-specific data such as disease activity scores, which were not in the database. Also missing were variables linked to disease activity and mortality, including smoking, BMI levels, and C-reactive protein levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with UCB, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Drug use disorder increased the likelihood of in-hospital mortality more than 10-fold in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), compared with patients who did not die while hospitalized.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from 2,125 adults with AS who were hospitalized between 2015 and 2017, using the Cerner Health Facts Database.
- The final analysis included 41 patients with AS who died while hospitalized and 260 random control patients with AS who did not die.
- The mean age of the deceased patients with AS was 70 years, 85% were male, and 81% were White; 71% had hypertension, 32% had kidney disease, and 22% had congestive heart failure.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the patients with AS, cardiovascular disease was the most frequent cause of death, followed by infection, respiratory failure, and fracture/trauma in 15, 14, 8, and 7 patients, respectively. (Some patients had more than one cause of death recorded in the discharge summary.)
- The most common cardiac causes of death were myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, while the top causes of acute respiratory failure were pneumonia and pulmonary embolism.
- Drug abuse, including opioid dependence, was significantly associated with death among hospitalized patients with AS (adjusted odds ratio, 10.9; P = .001).
- Heart failure and kidney disease were the comorbidities most strongly associated with mortality; the odds of death in the presence of heart failure rose 2.76-fold, and it increased 2.46-fold in the presence of kidney disease.
IN PRACTICE:
Underlying comorbidities, especially cardiac and renal, are associated with mortality in AS, and patients should be screened early on for these comorbidities to help reduce the odds of death.
SOURCE:
First author Mohamad Bittar, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Rheumatology).
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked AS-specific data such as disease activity scores, which were not in the database. Also missing were variables linked to disease activity and mortality, including smoking, BMI levels, and C-reactive protein levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with UCB, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Drug use disorder increased the likelihood of in-hospital mortality more than 10-fold in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), compared with patients who did not die while hospitalized.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers reviewed data from 2,125 adults with AS who were hospitalized between 2015 and 2017, using the Cerner Health Facts Database.
- The final analysis included 41 patients with AS who died while hospitalized and 260 random control patients with AS who did not die.
- The mean age of the deceased patients with AS was 70 years, 85% were male, and 81% were White; 71% had hypertension, 32% had kidney disease, and 22% had congestive heart failure.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the patients with AS, cardiovascular disease was the most frequent cause of death, followed by infection, respiratory failure, and fracture/trauma in 15, 14, 8, and 7 patients, respectively. (Some patients had more than one cause of death recorded in the discharge summary.)
- The most common cardiac causes of death were myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, while the top causes of acute respiratory failure were pneumonia and pulmonary embolism.
- Drug abuse, including opioid dependence, was significantly associated with death among hospitalized patients with AS (adjusted odds ratio, 10.9; P = .001).
- Heart failure and kidney disease were the comorbidities most strongly associated with mortality; the odds of death in the presence of heart failure rose 2.76-fold, and it increased 2.46-fold in the presence of kidney disease.
IN PRACTICE:
Underlying comorbidities, especially cardiac and renal, are associated with mortality in AS, and patients should be screened early on for these comorbidities to help reduce the odds of death.
SOURCE:
First author Mohamad Bittar, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, and colleagues reported their findings in Clinical Rheumatology).
LIMITATIONS:
The study lacked AS-specific data such as disease activity scores, which were not in the database. Also missing were variables linked to disease activity and mortality, including smoking, BMI levels, and C-reactive protein levels.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received no outside funding. Several coauthors disclosed financial relationships with UCB, Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fracture risk factors described in patients with ankylosing spondylitis
TOPLINE:
Opioid use, older age, and fracture history increase the risk for fractures in older adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on a review of registry and Medicare claims data.
METHODOLOGY:
- Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data were linked to Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018; each patient had two AS International Classification of Diseases–9 and –10 codes at least 30 days apart.
- The study population included 1426 adults with AS (mean age, 69.4 years) who had continuous Medicare enrollment (Parts A and B) for the entire follow-up period but did not have Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C).
- The researchers used a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with fractures including age, sex, and body mass index.
TAKEAWAYS:
- The overall incidence of fractures was 76.7 per 1,000 person-years.
- Older age, history of fracture, and opioid use at a morphine-equivalent dose > 30 mg (at least one prescription 30 or more days prior to the index date) were significantly associated with increased risk for fracture (odds ratios, 2.8, 5.24, and 1.86, respectively).
- Fracture risk was equally likely for men and women.
IN PRACTICE:
The study supports fracture risk-reduction strategies for men and women with AS and a fracture history, with added attention to opioid users.
SOURCE:
The first author of the study was Rachael Stovall, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published Aug. 22, 2023, in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study does not include individuals younger than 65 years and references only first fractures. Some EHR data on variables including race, body mass index, national area deprivation index, and smoking status are incomplete.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by various grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Opioid use, older age, and fracture history increase the risk for fractures in older adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on a review of registry and Medicare claims data.
METHODOLOGY:
- Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data were linked to Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018; each patient had two AS International Classification of Diseases–9 and –10 codes at least 30 days apart.
- The study population included 1426 adults with AS (mean age, 69.4 years) who had continuous Medicare enrollment (Parts A and B) for the entire follow-up period but did not have Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C).
- The researchers used a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with fractures including age, sex, and body mass index.
TAKEAWAYS:
- The overall incidence of fractures was 76.7 per 1,000 person-years.
- Older age, history of fracture, and opioid use at a morphine-equivalent dose > 30 mg (at least one prescription 30 or more days prior to the index date) were significantly associated with increased risk for fracture (odds ratios, 2.8, 5.24, and 1.86, respectively).
- Fracture risk was equally likely for men and women.
IN PRACTICE:
The study supports fracture risk-reduction strategies for men and women with AS and a fracture history, with added attention to opioid users.
SOURCE:
The first author of the study was Rachael Stovall, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published Aug. 22, 2023, in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study does not include individuals younger than 65 years and references only first fractures. Some EHR data on variables including race, body mass index, national area deprivation index, and smoking status are incomplete.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by various grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Opioid use, older age, and fracture history increase the risk for fractures in older adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) based on a review of registry and Medicare claims data.
METHODOLOGY:
- Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry data were linked to Medicare claims from 2016 to 2018; each patient had two AS International Classification of Diseases–9 and –10 codes at least 30 days apart.
- The study population included 1426 adults with AS (mean age, 69.4 years) who had continuous Medicare enrollment (Parts A and B) for the entire follow-up period but did not have Medicare Advantage Plan (Part C).
- The researchers used a logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with fractures including age, sex, and body mass index.
TAKEAWAYS:
- The overall incidence of fractures was 76.7 per 1,000 person-years.
- Older age, history of fracture, and opioid use at a morphine-equivalent dose > 30 mg (at least one prescription 30 or more days prior to the index date) were significantly associated with increased risk for fracture (odds ratios, 2.8, 5.24, and 1.86, respectively).
- Fracture risk was equally likely for men and women.
IN PRACTICE:
The study supports fracture risk-reduction strategies for men and women with AS and a fracture history, with added attention to opioid users.
SOURCE:
The first author of the study was Rachael Stovall, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco. The study was published Aug. 22, 2023, in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study does not include individuals younger than 65 years and references only first fractures. Some EHR data on variables including race, body mass index, national area deprivation index, and smoking status are incomplete.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by various grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rheumatology trials seem vulnerable to unblinding: Report
Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.
“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.
Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
A sample of pivotal clinical trials
The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.
The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.
In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:
- High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
- Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
- Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).
Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity
CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.
“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.
The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.
But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.
“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.
In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.
“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
Unblinding measure needs validation
In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”
He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.
“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”
Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”
In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.
There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.
“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.
In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”
One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.
“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.
In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.
Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.
Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.
“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.
Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
A sample of pivotal clinical trials
The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.
The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.
In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:
- High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
- Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
- Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).
Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity
CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.
“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.
The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.
But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.
“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.
In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.
“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
Unblinding measure needs validation
In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”
He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.
“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”
Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”
In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.
There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.
“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.
In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”
One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.
“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.
In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.
Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.
Until more is known about the potential for unblinding, clinicians need to keep in mind that patients and physicians could often guess accurately who was getting placebo or active drug, first author Cody Bruggemeyer, MD, a resident at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.
“It’s important that rheumatologists be aware of this potential issue and use their clinical reasoning and their ability to critically assess papers to evaluate the study design” of research on treatments, he said in an interview.
Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors at the Medical College of Wisconsin presented their assessment of the potential for unblinding in a Viewpoint article in The Lancet Rheumatology.
A sample of pivotal clinical trials
The authors selected a sample of pivotal studies of 14 commonly prescribed drugs for rheumatic conditions for which double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the active ingredient with a placebo were available.
The 14 trials involved treatments classified as disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), some of which were likely to produce side effects that placebos would not mimic, such as injection site and infusion reactions and difference in readings in lab reports, the authors wrote.
In their analysis, Dr. Bruggemeyer and colleagues evaluated discrepancies in the rates of adverse events reported between active drugs and placebos and classified the 14 studies as follows:
- High unblinding risk: Nine studies had a high estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of adalimumab with citrate (Humira), anakinra (Kineret), anifrolumab (Saphnelo), apremilast (Otezla), ixekizumab (Taltz), leflunomide (Arava), methotrexate, risankizumab (Skyrizi) and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
- Moderate unblinding risk: Three studies had a moderate estimated risk of unblinding, including trials of azathioprine (Imuran), mycophenolate mofetil and tocilizumab (Actemra).
- Low unblinding risk: Two studies had a low estimated risk of unblinding. These involved tests of belimumab (Benlysta) and rituximab (Rituxan).
Many of the effectiveness measurements of treatments used in rheumatology depend on patients’ reports of relief of pain and other disease symptoms. For example, the widely used American College of Rheumatology 20% response for rheumatoid arthritis includes components that rely on patient and physician assessment of disease activity.
Unblinding risk to clinical trial validity
CTs are the highest level of evidence to establish efficacy, because the study design aims to mask whether the experimental treatment is a drug or placebo. In cases where patients and physicians are more likely to correctly detect use of an active drug, there can be biases that skew results toward reports of symptom improvement. Other patients’ views of their treatment may be distorted by accurate guesses that they have been given placebo, Dr. Bruggemeyer and coauthors wrote.
“The degree of these effects cannot be predicted, but they tend to erroneously inflate the perceived benefit of novel interventions,” they wrote.
The consequences of this unblinding may be minimal in cases where there’s a clear difference between the placebo and active drug, they said. As an example, they cited trials of interleukin-23 inhibitors for psoriasis, where skin clearance as measured by the Psoriatic Area and Severity Index 75 differed by more than 50% in absolute terms between the treatment and placebo groups.
But in other cases, there needs to be more attention paid to the potential role of unblinding, they wrote.
“Studies where effect sizes were small, contradictory, or dependent on subgroup analyses might be especially problematic, but commentary rarely reflects this issue or acknowledges the potential influence of unblinding,” they wrote.
In the paper, they call for more analysis of previous trials to look for unreported assessments of unblinding, while also asking that researchers consider surveying participants in future trials to evaluate the degree to which unblinding occurs.
“Advocacy from professional societies and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration itself might be necessary, but in the interim, rheumatologists should assume unblinding has occurred to some degree in most trials,” they wrote.
Unblinding measure needs validation
In an interview, Roy M. Fleischmann, MD, co–medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center in Dallas, raised some objections to the paper. The paper addresses an interesting question about unblinding, but there should have been more work done, such as finding “a measure that is validated that can say whether you’ve been unblinded or not.”
He added that he was surprised the paper on unblinding in rheumatology trials was published in its current form.
“I would have sent it for a major rewrite” if asked to review this paper before publication, said Dr. Fleischmann, who as a reviewer for Lancet Rheumatology. “I would have said: ‘Okay, 90% of this paper is okay, but your gist is not correct.’ It should be: ‘Is this a problem?’ ”
Dr. Fleischmann said he would have recommended a different perspective to the paper. “That is, this could occur. Should we be looking at this, and how would we look at this?”
In the paper, the authors acknowledge their approach has not been validated, “but it highlights the potential effect of idiosyncratic adverse events,” they wrote.
There’s less funding in general for meta-research than for studies involving treatments, so researchers look for approaches that can be handled without requiring significant funding, and much of the research on the quality of research is conducted like this analysis of rheumatology trials, Michael Putman, MD, the corresponding author and is a rheumatologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.
“You’re mostly doing on a shoestring budget with yourself and trainees,” he said. Dr. Putman is an associate editor at the journal Rheumatology and also involved in meta-research, or efforts to understand how studies and trials answer questions about how medical treatments work.
In an Aug. 16 tweet, Dr. Putman said this issue of unintentional unblinding with rheumatology trials was something he’d “been ruminating about for awhile; took two all star trainees to push it over the top!”
One of the barriers to funding of meta-research is a tendency for major funding for medical studies to be focused on specific diseases or targets. With meta-research, it may be more difficult to explain how a specific project will advance efforts to treat or prevent a certain disease, Dr. Putman said.
“It’s a little more esoteric and maybe not quite as clear how these projects will move things forward,” Dr. Putman said.
In addition, the nature of meta-research is to question and often be critical of work that’s already been published, adding another hurdle in attempts to secure funding, he said.
Dr. Putman is supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development Grant, receives research funding related to clinical trials by AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Novartis. The other authors declared no competing interests.
FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY