Ankylosing spondylitis

Women with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are more likely to use healthcare services than men, a Canadian study found. The results suggest there are biological differences in disease course and sociocultural differences in health care access and patient behavior among the sexes, Sanjana Tarannum said in a presentation at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Ms. Tarannum and colleagues also recently published the study in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Effectively managing IA patients calls for timely access to and appropriate use of health care resources, said Ms. Tarannum, of the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto.

Sex and gender are often used interchangeably but they refer to different things. “Sex is the biological characteristic of being male or female. It relates to disease inheritance patterns, pain processing mechanisms, and immune dysregulation in the context of inflammatory arthritis,” Ms. Tarannum said during her presentation.

Gender is a sociocultural construct associated with masculine or feminine traits. In the context of IA, gender relates to coping strategies, pain perception and reporting, and health care–seeking behavior of patients and interaction with care providers.

A patient’s sex relates to healthcare encounters, time to diagnosis, and prescription patterns. These all affect disease outcomes. Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results and mainly focused on rheumatoid arthritis rather than other IA types such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Ms. Tarannum and colleagues sought to compare health care usage between male and female patients for musculoskeletal-related issues before and after IA diagnosis. They used Ontario administrative health data to create three cohorts of patients with RA, AS, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the three most common types of IA. The patients were diagnosed during 2010-2017, and outcomes were assessed in each year for 3 years before and after diagnosis.

Health care use indicators included visits to physicians, musculoskeletal imaging, laboratory tests, and dispensation of drugs. Regression models adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities were used to compare male and female patients.

Sex-related differences emerge in all IA groups

The investigators assessed 41,277 patients with RA (69% female), 8,150 patients with AS (51% female), and 6,446 patients with PsA (54% female). Male patients had more cardiovascular disease, whereas female patients had higher incidences of depression and osteoporosis.

Similar trends of sex-related differences emerged in all three cohorts. Before diagnosis, female patients were more likely to visit rheumatologists or family physicians for musculoskeletal reasons or use musculoskeletal imaging and laboratory tests. Women were also more likely to remain in rheumatology care after diagnosis.

Men were more likely to visit the ED for musculoskeletal reasons immediately before diagnosis.

No sex- or gender-related differences were observed in medication use, although older females with RA or AS were more likely to get prescriptions for NSAIDs and opioids and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively.

The findings show that overall musculoskeletal health care use was higher in female patients with IA. “Sex differences were more pronounced the earlier the encounter was from the time of diagnosis and tended to diminish with time,” Ms. Tarannum observed. Sex differences were also more prominent in the RA and AS cohorts.
 

Women seek out care, do repeat visits

Several reasons may explain why utilization was higher in females. Women with IA have a higher overall risk of musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, which could have driven the health care encounters. Numerous studies have also reported that female patients have a lower threshold for pain as well as a greater tendency to seek out health care.

Additionally, female patients often present with pain and fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or depression. Therefore, they often require repeated health care encounters to arrive at an IA diagnosis, Ms. Tarannum said.

An early prodromal phase in females could have triggered a health care encounter as well.

Men, by comparison, are more likely to have acute-onset or severe disease. Objective signs and radiologic features can facilitate diagnosis in men, she said. Male patients also show more reluctance in seeking care, have a higher threshold for pain, and are less likely to have a usual source of care such as a family physician.

Higher confidence in hospital-based emergency services also could have resulted in more ED visits and lower health care use in men. Better response to treatments could also have resulted in fewer episodes of rheumatology care after diagnosis.

The results aren’t surprising, said Scott Zashin, MD, a rheumatologist in Dallas who wasn’t a part of the study.

“At least in terms of musculoskeletal disorders, my clinical experience suggests that women are more compliant with their follow-up than male patients. Especially with gout, a common type of arthritis in men, male patients may wait until their symptoms are severe before seeking medical attention,” Dr. Zashin said.

The Enid Walker Graduate Student Award for Research in Women’s Health provided funding for this study.

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

Women with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are more likely to use healthcare services than men, a Canadian study found. The results suggest there are biological differences in disease course and sociocultural differences in health care access and patient behavior among the sexes, Sanjana Tarannum said in a presentation at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Ms. Tarannum and colleagues also recently published the study in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Effectively managing IA patients calls for timely access to and appropriate use of health care resources, said Ms. Tarannum, of the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto.

Sex and gender are often used interchangeably but they refer to different things. “Sex is the biological characteristic of being male or female. It relates to disease inheritance patterns, pain processing mechanisms, and immune dysregulation in the context of inflammatory arthritis,” Ms. Tarannum said during her presentation.

Gender is a sociocultural construct associated with masculine or feminine traits. In the context of IA, gender relates to coping strategies, pain perception and reporting, and health care–seeking behavior of patients and interaction with care providers.

A patient’s sex relates to healthcare encounters, time to diagnosis, and prescription patterns. These all affect disease outcomes. Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results and mainly focused on rheumatoid arthritis rather than other IA types such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Ms. Tarannum and colleagues sought to compare health care usage between male and female patients for musculoskeletal-related issues before and after IA diagnosis. They used Ontario administrative health data to create three cohorts of patients with RA, AS, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the three most common types of IA. The patients were diagnosed during 2010-2017, and outcomes were assessed in each year for 3 years before and after diagnosis.

Health care use indicators included visits to physicians, musculoskeletal imaging, laboratory tests, and dispensation of drugs. Regression models adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities were used to compare male and female patients.

Sex-related differences emerge in all IA groups

The investigators assessed 41,277 patients with RA (69% female), 8,150 patients with AS (51% female), and 6,446 patients with PsA (54% female). Male patients had more cardiovascular disease, whereas female patients had higher incidences of depression and osteoporosis.

Similar trends of sex-related differences emerged in all three cohorts. Before diagnosis, female patients were more likely to visit rheumatologists or family physicians for musculoskeletal reasons or use musculoskeletal imaging and laboratory tests. Women were also more likely to remain in rheumatology care after diagnosis.

Men were more likely to visit the ED for musculoskeletal reasons immediately before diagnosis.

No sex- or gender-related differences were observed in medication use, although older females with RA or AS were more likely to get prescriptions for NSAIDs and opioids and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively.

The findings show that overall musculoskeletal health care use was higher in female patients with IA. “Sex differences were more pronounced the earlier the encounter was from the time of diagnosis and tended to diminish with time,” Ms. Tarannum observed. Sex differences were also more prominent in the RA and AS cohorts.
 

Women seek out care, do repeat visits

Several reasons may explain why utilization was higher in females. Women with IA have a higher overall risk of musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, which could have driven the health care encounters. Numerous studies have also reported that female patients have a lower threshold for pain as well as a greater tendency to seek out health care.

Additionally, female patients often present with pain and fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or depression. Therefore, they often require repeated health care encounters to arrive at an IA diagnosis, Ms. Tarannum said.

An early prodromal phase in females could have triggered a health care encounter as well.

Men, by comparison, are more likely to have acute-onset or severe disease. Objective signs and radiologic features can facilitate diagnosis in men, she said. Male patients also show more reluctance in seeking care, have a higher threshold for pain, and are less likely to have a usual source of care such as a family physician.

Higher confidence in hospital-based emergency services also could have resulted in more ED visits and lower health care use in men. Better response to treatments could also have resulted in fewer episodes of rheumatology care after diagnosis.

The results aren’t surprising, said Scott Zashin, MD, a rheumatologist in Dallas who wasn’t a part of the study.

“At least in terms of musculoskeletal disorders, my clinical experience suggests that women are more compliant with their follow-up than male patients. Especially with gout, a common type of arthritis in men, male patients may wait until their symptoms are severe before seeking medical attention,” Dr. Zashin said.

The Enid Walker Graduate Student Award for Research in Women’s Health provided funding for this study.

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

Women with inflammatory arthritis (IA) are more likely to use healthcare services than men, a Canadian study found. The results suggest there are biological differences in disease course and sociocultural differences in health care access and patient behavior among the sexes, Sanjana Tarannum said in a presentation at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Ms. Tarannum and colleagues also recently published the study in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Effectively managing IA patients calls for timely access to and appropriate use of health care resources, said Ms. Tarannum, of the Women’s College Research Institute in Toronto.

Sex and gender are often used interchangeably but they refer to different things. “Sex is the biological characteristic of being male or female. It relates to disease inheritance patterns, pain processing mechanisms, and immune dysregulation in the context of inflammatory arthritis,” Ms. Tarannum said during her presentation.

Gender is a sociocultural construct associated with masculine or feminine traits. In the context of IA, gender relates to coping strategies, pain perception and reporting, and health care–seeking behavior of patients and interaction with care providers.

A patient’s sex relates to healthcare encounters, time to diagnosis, and prescription patterns. These all affect disease outcomes. Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results and mainly focused on rheumatoid arthritis rather than other IA types such as ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Ms. Tarannum and colleagues sought to compare health care usage between male and female patients for musculoskeletal-related issues before and after IA diagnosis. They used Ontario administrative health data to create three cohorts of patients with RA, AS, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), the three most common types of IA. The patients were diagnosed during 2010-2017, and outcomes were assessed in each year for 3 years before and after diagnosis.

Health care use indicators included visits to physicians, musculoskeletal imaging, laboratory tests, and dispensation of drugs. Regression models adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities were used to compare male and female patients.

Sex-related differences emerge in all IA groups

The investigators assessed 41,277 patients with RA (69% female), 8,150 patients with AS (51% female), and 6,446 patients with PsA (54% female). Male patients had more cardiovascular disease, whereas female patients had higher incidences of depression and osteoporosis.

Similar trends of sex-related differences emerged in all three cohorts. Before diagnosis, female patients were more likely to visit rheumatologists or family physicians for musculoskeletal reasons or use musculoskeletal imaging and laboratory tests. Women were also more likely to remain in rheumatology care after diagnosis.

Men were more likely to visit the ED for musculoskeletal reasons immediately before diagnosis.

No sex- or gender-related differences were observed in medication use, although older females with RA or AS were more likely to get prescriptions for NSAIDs and opioids and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, respectively.

The findings show that overall musculoskeletal health care use was higher in female patients with IA. “Sex differences were more pronounced the earlier the encounter was from the time of diagnosis and tended to diminish with time,” Ms. Tarannum observed. Sex differences were also more prominent in the RA and AS cohorts.
 

Women seek out care, do repeat visits

Several reasons may explain why utilization was higher in females. Women with IA have a higher overall risk of musculoskeletal conditions such as osteoarthritis, which could have driven the health care encounters. Numerous studies have also reported that female patients have a lower threshold for pain as well as a greater tendency to seek out health care.

Additionally, female patients often present with pain and fatigue, which are often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or depression. Therefore, they often require repeated health care encounters to arrive at an IA diagnosis, Ms. Tarannum said.

An early prodromal phase in females could have triggered a health care encounter as well.

Men, by comparison, are more likely to have acute-onset or severe disease. Objective signs and radiologic features can facilitate diagnosis in men, she said. Male patients also show more reluctance in seeking care, have a higher threshold for pain, and are less likely to have a usual source of care such as a family physician.

Higher confidence in hospital-based emergency services also could have resulted in more ED visits and lower health care use in men. Better response to treatments could also have resulted in fewer episodes of rheumatology care after diagnosis.

The results aren’t surprising, said Scott Zashin, MD, a rheumatologist in Dallas who wasn’t a part of the study.

“At least in terms of musculoskeletal disorders, my clinical experience suggests that women are more compliant with their follow-up than male patients. Especially with gout, a common type of arthritis in men, male patients may wait until their symptoms are severe before seeking medical attention,” Dr. Zashin said.

The Enid Walker Graduate Student Award for Research in Women’s Health provided funding for this study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

Gender-affirming hormone therapy’s effect on transgender patients with rheumatic disease is unclear but does not appear to modulate its course and does not need to be strictly contraindicated in most patients, according to a case series and systematic literature review.

More doctors are practicing transgender medicine, yet a limited amount of information is available on rheumatic disease in transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) individuals, Kristen Mathias, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in her presentation of the study at the Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

“This is important, as it is well known that sex hormones affect the pathogenesis and expression of autoimmune diseases,” Dr. Mathias said. Knowing more about the effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery on disease activity in TGGD individuals could better inform decisions about care in this population.

Dr. Mathias and colleagues identified 7 transgender patients with rheumatic diseases from a pool of 1,053 patients seen at the Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles, from June 2019 to June 2021. This included five transgender males and two transgender females. They ranged in age from 13 to 52 years.

All seven were on GAHT, and its impact on disease activity was considered “possible” in two of the seven patients.

In a systematic literature review, investigators found 11 studies that included 11 transgender women and 2 transgender men, ranging in age from 22 to 49 years. All the patients were on GAHT. In 12 of 13 patients, the hormones were considered possibly related to their rheumatic disease activity.

The 20 patients had diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis, cutaneous and systemic lupus erythematosus, adult-onset Still disease, spondyloarthritis, myositis, and systemic sclerosis.

GAHT should not be a strict contraindication in these patients, based on these findings, Dr. Mathias noted. Information to clarify the effect of GAHT on rheumatic disease is sparse, however. Physicians should adopt a personalized, shared decision-making approach when consulting patients.

“During patient encounters, they should be screened for psychosocial barriers when appropriate,” Dr. Mathias recommended.

Findings could pave way for larger studies, more data

Studies on the impact and consequences of rheumatic disease in TGGD individuals are sorely lacking, said Vagishwari Murugesan, MBBS, a clinical fellow in rheumatology at the University of Toronto.

“While this is a small study of only seven patients and no conclusive results can be drawn, studies like these can help pave the way for larger multicentric studies, which can give us more definitive data on gender-affirming hormone therapy and its consequences on rheumatic diseases,” said Dr. Murugesan, who was not involved in the study.

A registry would be a great way to collaborate with other stakeholders interested in the same topic and conduct larger studies, she said. “I would recommend that not only do we screen for psychosocial barriers but also actively engage as a health care community in addressing how we can overcome the barriers for patients to access effective health care.”

No external funding was obtained for the study.

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

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Over 10% of patients referred by chiropractors to rheumatology had undiagnosed spondyloarthritis, with axial spondyloarthritis being the most common, according to new data. The U.S. study was aimed at understanding what proportion of back pain patients have undiagnosed spondyloarthritis.

The study also found that the most common cause for which patients see chiropractors is neck/cervical pain.

Atul Deodhar, MD, MRCP, rheumatologist and medical director of rheumatology clinics at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, was senior author of the poster that was presented at the 13th International Congress of Spondyloarthritides.

“In the U.S., many people with back pain go to chiropractors, but many chiropractors are not aware of axial spondyloarthritis [axSpA] terminology, and very little – if anything – is published in chiropractic literature, “ he said in an interview.

He remarked that the study highlighted the need to develop a better strategy to identify undiagnosed patients, because the yield found in their study was poor (13%). “Patient-reported spondyloarthritis criteria are often poor, and do not match rheumatologist-inquired history,” he noted, adding that, “inflammatory back pain is in fact a poor ‘entry point.’ ”

Ulrich Weber, MD, rheumatologist from the Practice Buchsbaum in Schaffhausen, Switzerland, commented on the findings, saying he often receives delayed referrals from chiropractors, so “it would be very useful if patients could be more easily and accurately identifiable via this route, but the problem is chiropractors do not have a specific training to spot spondyloarthritis.”

He added that he welcomed the study but noted, “the criteria used to identify patients in this study are broad and I’d worry that it would inundate our rheumatology practice. There remains a real need for a good method of identifying the patients.”
 

Referral to rheumatology

Back pain is highly prevalent in the general population, with a global mean lifetime prevalence of 38.9%. Chiropractors treat many patients with back pain of unknown cause.

“In this study, we wanted to see what percentage of patients in chiropractic practice have undiagnosed axial spondyloarthritis, and what are the common complaints. Our hypothesis was that chiropractors may be missing such patients,” Dr. Deodhar explained.

Dr. Deodhar and colleagues recruited chiropractors from four different parts of the city of Portland into the study. “We think Portland, Oregon, is a typical U.S. city, and our results could be generalized. However, this is our impression alone,” he remarked.

Adults, under the age of 45 years who attended a participating chiropractic clinics between November 2020 and November 2021 for chronic back pain and without a prior diagnosis of spondyloarthritis were eligible for inclusion.

If the patient reported at least one feature of spondyloarthritis in the screening questionnaire they were referred to a rheumatologist for a diagnostic assessment. This assessment involved taking history by telephone, both laboratory tests and imaging, and the patients were categorized as radiographic axSpA, nonradiographic axSpA, peripheral SpA, or no SpA.

The screening questionnaire included the following examples: If the patient was under 45 years and had chronic pain in back, hip or buttocks, then they were asked for more information including whether their pain was gradual (insidious) in onset; if the pain started before the age of 40; and if the pain improved with physical activities or movements. Use of drugs was investigated including whether the pain improved significantly with NSAIDs and whether the patient has current or past heel pains, particularly when waking up in the morning. They were also asked if they have experienced skin psoriasis. Other questions were asked about the presence of uveitis, iritis, family history of psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, or ankylosing spondylitis, and whether the patient had unexplained joint pains plus joint swelling.
 

Ten percent of patients referred to rheumatology

A total of 3,103 visits to chiropractor clinics were included, of which 115 patients were referred to a rheumatologist. Eventually, 63 patients were fully assessed by a rheumatologist.

Of those patients who were fully assessed, 12.7% has spondyloarthritis, with one having confirmed radiographic axSpA, five having nonradiographic SpA, and two having peripheral spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

Based on the referral questionnaire, all patients reported at least four SpA criteria were met, said Dr. Deodhar.

Of those patients diagnosed with SpA, 14% (1) has elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level, 14% (1) were HLA-B27 positive, and 14% (1) were identified as having both elevated CRP and HLA-B27 positivity. Sacroiliac joint inflammation was found in 14% (1) on MRI and one had sacroiliac joint inflammation according to modified New York criteria. One (14%) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation on MRI and elevated CRP, and 14% (1) had both sacroiliac joint inflammation and was HLA-B27 positive.

The top complaints reported by patients at chiropractor clinics were neck and cervical spine pain/spasm (16.8%); followed by acute low back pain (11.7%); acute upper back (7.1%); and chronic lower back pain (6.9%).
 

No patients with more than 10 SpA criteria

The performance of an initial diagnostic assessment based on patient reported SpA criteria, as compared with the outcome of the full diagnosis (by a rheumatologist) showed that patients with one to four SpA criteria had a sensitivity of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.85), and specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61-0.84). This increased to sensitivity of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.17-1.03), and specificity of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.44-0.77) when six SpA criteria were present.

Dr. Deodhar said the results supported a need to further develop the chiropractor’s role in identifying the right patients for referral, and that the study showed that a referral strategy is required to find undiagnosed patients with spondyloarthritis from chiropractic offices. “Chiropractors need education for axSpA, when to suspect, and when to refer,” he asserted. “What referral strategy to use is for debate – the ASAS [Assessment in SpondyloArthritis international Society] strategy is too sensitive and not specific enough.”

Dr. Deodhar noted that SPARTAN (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and the Spondyloarthritis Research & Treatment Network) is working on a referral strategy that is likely to be more specific, and that more data would be forthcoming soon.

Dr. Deodhar declared affiliations with multiple companies involved in the field unrelated to the study. Dr. Weber declared no relevant disclosures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large study across SpA phenotypes and disease-scoring methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large study across SpA phenotypes and disease-scoring methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Large study across SpA phenotypes and disease-scoring methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary endpoint of treatment failure favored filgotinib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary endpoint of treatment failure favored filgotinib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary endpoint of treatment failure favored filgotinib

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

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

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

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

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – A strong numerical signal suggests the addition of a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor can reduce spinal radiographic progression in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) over 2 years, although results are not statistically significant.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

Lead researcher and rheumatologist, Fabian Proft, MD, based at Charité University Medicine, Berlin, presented the findings of the study at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Only 97 patients completed the study, and its follow-up period lasted 2 years, which is a relatively short period of time in which to determine the effects of an intervention that might affect structural progression of the spine, Dr. Proft said.

“Based on these data, I won’t treat all my patients with celecoxib,” he told this news organization. However, he added that, “If I have a patient with residual symptoms under biological DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], and I feel they are at high risk of radiographic spinal progression and they still have symptoms, then I would add in an NSAID – and for that I’d choose a selective COX-2 inhibitor based on radiographic spinal progression data.”

Walter P. Maksymowych, MD, rheumatologist from the University of Alberta, Calgary, commented on the study findings in an interview. “This is an important clinical question because we want to know whether we should be adding an anti-inflammatory in patients who are on biologic therapies. There’s been a long debate and investigation into whether anti-inflammatories might prevent new bone formation and thereby prevent disease progression.”

He went on by acknowledging that there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint (change in modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score [mSASSS]) between the groups, but added that, “there was a sizable numerical difference, and I think this leaves the community somewhat hanging dry without a definitive answer. However, I do have concerns about whether there was an adequate sample size to address the study question.”
 

To add or not to add a selective COX-2 inhibitor to TNF inhibitor in axSpA treatment

The study aimed to investigate the effect of a selective COX-2 inhibitor when added to anti-TNF therapy with golimumab (Simponi), compared with golimumab therapy alone, on the progression of spinal structural damage over 2 years in patients with active radiographic axSpA.

“To date, we don’t have many treatments with evidence of reducing spinal radiographic progression in axSpA,” Dr. Proft said. “There was one study showing an effect of celecoxib, but another with diclofenac that failed to show any effect. As a result, there was a hypothesis that perhaps there was a selective COX-2 inhibitor effect.”

To investigate this further, Dr. Proft selected patients with high radiographic axSpA disease activity (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥ 4) and with existing structural changes – both recognized risk factors for further progression. Participants had to have either an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) > 5 mg/L and/or ≥ 1 syndesmophyte at screening, as well as a history of inadequate response to at least two DMARDs. Other patient risk factors for radiographic spinal progression included male gender and smoking. Duration of axSpA was unlimited.

Three radiographic readers were blinded for all clinical data and chronology. The primary endpoint was the change in mSASSS, while secondary endpoints were the presence of new syndesmophytes and clinical outcomes including activity, function, mobility, and health-related quality of life, as well as safety assessments.

Patients were treated with only golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) for the first 12 weeks and then only those patients with a good clinical response (n = 109) went into phase two of the study, at which point they were randomized 1:1 to golimumab monotherapy (control, 50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks), or golimumab (50 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) plus celecoxib (400 mg once daily) for 2 years. Radiographs were taken at baseline (week 0) and after 2 years. A total of 45 patients completed the combination therapy and 52 completed the monotherapy.
 

No statistical significance but a numerical difference found

“The primary outcome, which was change in mSASSS score, clearly shows a numerical difference between the combination arm at 1.1 and the monotherapy arm at 1.7 points, showing more structural progression in the monotherapy arm, compared to the combination arm,” Dr. Proft reported. However, he stressed that this difference did not reach statistical significance.

New syndesmophytes occurred in 25% with monotherapy and 11.1% with combination treatment. Again, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

“This might be due to sample size but also to the length of follow-up because a longer follow-up [given structural changes occur relatively slowly] might have shown a greater difference,” Dr. Proft pointed out.

Clinical data, according to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with CRP and BASDAI, showed that both groups responded very well to therapy, and there were no differences seen between the two groups in terms of clinical parameters.

“It is important when we add a drug – and we know that NSAIDs can have safety concerns – that we do not see any statistically significant serious adverse events between patient groups,” Dr. Proft noted.

There were no significant differences in adverse events between monotherapy and combination therapy. There were 162 infections in the combination arm and 150 in the monotherapy arm. Combination therapy led to seven serious adverse events, and monotherapy occurred with five adverse events.

Dr. Proft added that four patients discontinued in the combination arm, compared with only one in the monotherapy arm, with a variety of different reasons for the discontinuations.

The study was supported by a grant from the German Ministry of Education and Research, and golimumab was provided free of charge by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Proft reported serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; serving as a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly. Dr. Maksymowych declared having no relevant conflicts of interest.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

GHENT, BELGIUM – Patients with nonradiographic or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) experienced clinically relevant treatment responses to bimekizumab (Bimzelx) at similar rates that significantly exceeded placebo, regardless of prior experience with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to results from two phase 3 trials presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

In addition, around half of patients with either nonradiographic or radiographic disease achieved complete remission of enthesitis by week 16 of treatment with bimekizumab. The drug, a humanized, monoclonal antibody dually inhibiting interleukins (IL) 17A and 17F, is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Bimekizumab blockade works independently of axial spondyloarthritis pretreatment, which means this drug specifically blocks something that other drugs do not reach,” said Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Ruhr University Bochum (Germany). He presented 24-week data on the use of bimekizumab.

The BE MOBILE 1 trial involved 256 patients with nonradiographic axSpA, whereas BE MOBILE 2 involved 232 patients with radiographic axSpA. In both trials, bimekizumab 160 mg was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and at week 16, all patients, including those who had received placebo, received open-label bimekizumab for another 8 weeks. This news organization previously reported results from BE MOBILE 2 that were presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2022 annual meeting.

In Ghent, referring to the nonradiographic patients, Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview, “We saw a very clear response to the active drug even after 2 weeks. The curves separated out from placebo. The week 16 primary analysis showed patients on bimekizumab did significantly better, [and there was] a similar response in those who switched to [open-label] bimekizumab after placebo” at week 16.

In patients with nonradiographic disease at week 24, 52.3% on bimekizumab achieved the trial’s primary outcome of 40% improvement in Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 46.8% of patients who were receiving placebo and then switched to open-label bimekizumab at week 16, the latter rising from 21.4% at week 16. For comparison, 47.7% on bimekizumab achieved ASAS 40 at week 16.

At week 24 in BE MOBILE 2, 53.8% of patients with radiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab met ASAS 40 criteria, as did 56.8% of patients who switched from placebo to open-label bimekizumab, rising from 22.5% with placebo and 44.8% with bimekizumab at week 16.

Audience member Fabian Proft, MD, of Charité Medical University, Berlin, commented on the latest results as well as wider bimekizumab findings, including those relating to psoriasis. “When we compare this to drugs that are already approved and available, we can assume that bimekizumab is equally effective to existing ones,” he said, noting that “there is the additional option in patients with psoriasis, where it seems to be the most effective drug for this indication. If I had a patient with radiographic or nonradiographic axial SpA and who also had significant psoriasis, then bimekizumab would be my choice of treatment.”


 

Targeting IL-17A and IL-17F in one drug

In the BE MOBILE 1 study, Dr. Baraliakos and coinvestigators looked at whether inhibiting IL-17F as well as IL-17A “makes sense” in terms of clinical benefits in patients with axSpA.

“Previous experience with IL-17A inhibitors shows they work well but still miss some patients,” Dr. Baraliakos said, adding that, “the hope is that by blocking both IL-17A and IL-17F, the response will be a bit better in terms of both greater response and longevity of response than [with an] IL-17A [inhibitor] alone.”

Patients in BE MOBILE 1 were typical adult patients with nonradiographic axSpA who fulfilled ASAS classification criteria and had elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or sacroiliitis on MRI. All patients were older than 18 years and had a mean age of 39 years. In each arm, 51%-57% were men. Overall, patients had a mean of 9 years of symptoms and a mean Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score of 3.7 in both patient groups (placebo and bimekizumab).

All had active disease (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index ≥ 4 and spi­nal pain ≥ 4) at baseline and demonstrated failure to respond to two different NSAIDs or had a history of intolerance to or contraindication to NSAIDs. Patients had previously received up to one TNF inhibitor (13.5% in the placebo group and 7.8% in the bimekizumab group).

The primary outcome compared rate of response to ASAS 40 criteria, which comprises patient global assessment of disease, spinal pain, function (as assessed by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]), and inflammation (stiffness).

Early response seen regardless of previous TNF inhibitor experience

“We saw response to bimekizumab very early in our patients at 16 weeks. The amount of response was higher than that observed with IL-17A alone,” Dr. Baraliakos said in an interview. “It’s understood that IL-17A and IL-17F do not work together on the inflammatory cascade, but work separately, and this might explain the findings whereby this drug captures more inflammation.”

Dr. Baraliakos highlighted the unique response rates seen with bimekizumab regardless of past TNF inhibitor use. “The TNF inhibitor-experienced patients responded as well as the TNF inhibitor–naive ones. This is unusual because nonresponders to other drugs are usually more severely affected and have a lower chance of showing response to any drug. Also, we did not see this response in patients treated with IL-17A only.”

At 16 weeks, patients with nonradiographic disease without a past history of using a TNF inhibitor had ASAS 40 responses at rates of 46.6% with bimekizumab and 22.9% with placebo. These rates in patients with past TNF inhibitor use were 60% with bimekizumab and 11.8% with placebo.

Statistically significant differences between bimekizumab and placebo occurred for all primary and secondary outcomes. “This includes the MRI inflammation findings in bimekizumab-treated patients,” Dr. Baraliakos reported.

Complete resolution of enthesitis was also observed. By week 24, enthesitis completely resolved in 47.9% of patients with nonradiographic disease on continuous bimekizumab and 43.5% of those patients who switched from placebo to bimekizumab. In patients with radiographic disease, complete resolution occurred in 53% of those on continuous bimekizumab and 49.3% of patients who switched at week 16. “This was an excellent outcome,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The safety profile at 24 weeks confirmed prior findings at 16 weeks in which the most common treatment-emergent adverse events with bimekizumab were nasopharyngitis (9.4%), upper respiratory tract infection (7%), and oral candidiasis (3.1%); fungal infections overall occurred in 7% taking bimekizumab.

“We saw slightly higher fungal infections, but this is because we block IL-17A and IL-17F, and [the risk for these infections] is linked to the mechanism of action. But we can deal with this,” Dr. Baraliakos said.

The trials were sponsored by UCB. Dr. Baraliakos disclosed serving on the speakers bureau and as a paid instructor and consultant for Ab­bVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Proft disclosed serving on speakers bureaus for Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB; being a consultant to Novartis; and receiving grant or research support from Novartis, UCB, and Lilly.

Erosions and ankylosis in patients with sacroiliitis are detectable to a high degree of accuracy on CT images using an artificial intelligence (AI)–based algorithm, according to research presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Lennart Jans, MD, head of clinics in musculoskeletal imaging in the department of radiology at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, shared data on the development and validation of the algorithm for automatic detection of erosion and ankylosis on CT images of the sacroiliac (SI) joints.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Essentially, in terms of statistics, this AI algorithm has 95% sensitivity for picking up erosions in patients with clinical symptoms of sacroiliitis, and if this is further developed as a tool, it could aid detection in people with erosions that would otherwise go undetected and undiagnosed,” Dr. Jans said in an interview, stressing that the results were still preliminary.

“We want to move from reporting one patient at a time to a system that detects and helps to diagnose larger numbers of patients and makes a larger impact on patient outcomes.”

He stressed that, with thousands of images per patient, it is an impossible workload for any radiology department to read every image necessary to inform diagnoses, and this is only exacerbated by the shortage of rheumatologists, especially in the United States.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD, head of rheumatology at Charité University Hospital, Berlin, acknowledged that AI has potential to improve the recognition of changes indicative of spondyloarthritis (SpA) on imaging. “A standardized, valid, and reliable detection of those changes is relevant for both diagnosis, including differential diagnosis, and classification of SpA.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added that the AI-based algorithm developed by Dr. Jans and associates is designed to detect very specific SpA structural changes in the SI joints on CT. “CT is usually applied in the clinical practice after MRI ... normally in cases where MRI does not provide conclusive results,” he said. Since MRI scans have also been recently used to develop an AI-based algorithm for the detection of active inflammation – not captured by CT – and structural changes in SI joints, he noted that the “generated data on CT should be, therefore, seen in a broader context toward standardization of imaging findings detection.”
 

Proof-of-concept findings are due for scale-up

Dr. Jans acknowledged that the current data only establish proof of concept. Among the study’s 145 patients, 60% were used for training the AI algorithm and 40% for testing it. All patients who had clinical symptoms of sacroiliitis and had undergone a SI joint CT scan were included from two hospitals: Ghent University Hospital and the University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton. The majority of patients were female (81 of 145). They had a mean age of 40 years, 84 had diagnosed axial SpA, 15 had mechanical back pain, and 46 did not have a final diagnosis.

CT images were examined by three independent and blinded radiologists who annotated erosions more than 1 mm and ankylosis more than 2 mm, while a type of AI algorithm known as a neural network pipeline was developed to segment the SI joints and detect structural lesions.

In the first instance, Dr. Jans explained, examination of CT images using the AI algorithm from patients who enter the hospital for other reasons, such as trauma, rheumatic diseases, kidney stones, or appendicitis, might lead to the detection of otherwise unknown erosions. “Often patients have complained of backache for years, seeing various physiotherapists and similar, but had no idea what might be causing it,” he said. “We just don’t have the time for examining all the thousands of images separately. We need some kind of aid here. We need an extra pair of eyes. This is what AI software does.”

Dr. Jans said rheumatologists who ultimately want to detect and diagnose patients with SI erosions want to reduce the false-negative findings. “They want the system to pick up all the patients who have erosions. Here, the most important parameter is sensitivity, and we find that our algorithm shows a very high sensitivity. Optimization of the AI algorithm to reduce false negatives resulted in a sensitivity of 95% for detection of erosions on CT of the sacroiliac joints on a patient level.”

While overall accuracy was over 90%, Dr. Jans acknowledged that the algorithm was run in a relatively select population of dedicated CT scans of the joints. He is also aware that a good AI algorithm needs to work well across locations and populations. “If you make something within your institution alone, it will not work in a hospital on the other side of the street.”

However, he added, the researchers used images from four different CT scanners and images from two different institutions – one in Canada and their own in Belgium, providing a case mix that makes their algorithm more refined.
 

Next step: Test in an unselected population

When asked to comment on the study, Mikael Boesen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, congratulated Dr. Jans on the work and remarked that he found the research potentially clinically useful.

“The next steps would be to test the performance of the model in an unselected population of patients who have CT scans of the abdomen for other reasons to test the model’s ability to flag potential SI joint disease to the reader, which is often overlooked, as well as [to see] how the model performs in larger datasets from other hospitals, vendors, and CT-reconstruction algorithms.”

Finally, Dr. Boesen pointed out that it would be interesting to see if the AI algorithm can detect different reasons for erosions. “Especially [for] separation between mechanical and inflammatory courses. This could potentially be done by automatically mapping the location of the erosions in the SI joints.”

Dr. Jans has now opened up the project to other radiologists to collaborate and provide images to train and test the algorithm further. “We now have 2.4 million images that have been enriched, and we will use these in the near future as we move beyond the proof-of-concept stage.

He is looking for as for as many partners as possible to help collect enriched images and develop this into a real tool for use in hospitals worldwide on clinical patients. “We have joined forces with several hospitals but continue looking for further collaborations.

“We need, just like self-driving cars, not just thousands, but tens of thousands or millions of images to develop this.”

Dr. Jans declared receiving speaker fees from UCB, AbbVie, Lilly, and Novartis, and that he is cofounder of a future spin-off of Ghent University RheumaFinder. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Boesen declared no relevant disclosures.
 

Erosions and ankylosis in patients with sacroiliitis are detectable to a high degree of accuracy on CT images using an artificial intelligence (AI)–based algorithm, according to research presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Lennart Jans, MD, head of clinics in musculoskeletal imaging in the department of radiology at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, shared data on the development and validation of the algorithm for automatic detection of erosion and ankylosis on CT images of the sacroiliac (SI) joints.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Essentially, in terms of statistics, this AI algorithm has 95% sensitivity for picking up erosions in patients with clinical symptoms of sacroiliitis, and if this is further developed as a tool, it could aid detection in people with erosions that would otherwise go undetected and undiagnosed,” Dr. Jans said in an interview, stressing that the results were still preliminary.

“We want to move from reporting one patient at a time to a system that detects and helps to diagnose larger numbers of patients and makes a larger impact on patient outcomes.”

He stressed that, with thousands of images per patient, it is an impossible workload for any radiology department to read every image necessary to inform diagnoses, and this is only exacerbated by the shortage of rheumatologists, especially in the United States.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD, head of rheumatology at Charité University Hospital, Berlin, acknowledged that AI has potential to improve the recognition of changes indicative of spondyloarthritis (SpA) on imaging. “A standardized, valid, and reliable detection of those changes is relevant for both diagnosis, including differential diagnosis, and classification of SpA.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added that the AI-based algorithm developed by Dr. Jans and associates is designed to detect very specific SpA structural changes in the SI joints on CT. “CT is usually applied in the clinical practice after MRI ... normally in cases where MRI does not provide conclusive results,” he said. Since MRI scans have also been recently used to develop an AI-based algorithm for the detection of active inflammation – not captured by CT – and structural changes in SI joints, he noted that the “generated data on CT should be, therefore, seen in a broader context toward standardization of imaging findings detection.”
 

Proof-of-concept findings are due for scale-up

Dr. Jans acknowledged that the current data only establish proof of concept. Among the study’s 145 patients, 60% were used for training the AI algorithm and 40% for testing it. All patients who had clinical symptoms of sacroiliitis and had undergone a SI joint CT scan were included from two hospitals: Ghent University Hospital and the University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton. The majority of patients were female (81 of 145). They had a mean age of 40 years, 84 had diagnosed axial SpA, 15 had mechanical back pain, and 46 did not have a final diagnosis.

CT images were examined by three independent and blinded radiologists who annotated erosions more than 1 mm and ankylosis more than 2 mm, while a type of AI algorithm known as a neural network pipeline was developed to segment the SI joints and detect structural lesions.

In the first instance, Dr. Jans explained, examination of CT images using the AI algorithm from patients who enter the hospital for other reasons, such as trauma, rheumatic diseases, kidney stones, or appendicitis, might lead to the detection of otherwise unknown erosions. “Often patients have complained of backache for years, seeing various physiotherapists and similar, but had no idea what might be causing it,” he said. “We just don’t have the time for examining all the thousands of images separately. We need some kind of aid here. We need an extra pair of eyes. This is what AI software does.”

Dr. Jans said rheumatologists who ultimately want to detect and diagnose patients with SI erosions want to reduce the false-negative findings. “They want the system to pick up all the patients who have erosions. Here, the most important parameter is sensitivity, and we find that our algorithm shows a very high sensitivity. Optimization of the AI algorithm to reduce false negatives resulted in a sensitivity of 95% for detection of erosions on CT of the sacroiliac joints on a patient level.”

While overall accuracy was over 90%, Dr. Jans acknowledged that the algorithm was run in a relatively select population of dedicated CT scans of the joints. He is also aware that a good AI algorithm needs to work well across locations and populations. “If you make something within your institution alone, it will not work in a hospital on the other side of the street.”

However, he added, the researchers used images from four different CT scanners and images from two different institutions – one in Canada and their own in Belgium, providing a case mix that makes their algorithm more refined.
 

Next step: Test in an unselected population

When asked to comment on the study, Mikael Boesen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, congratulated Dr. Jans on the work and remarked that he found the research potentially clinically useful.

“The next steps would be to test the performance of the model in an unselected population of patients who have CT scans of the abdomen for other reasons to test the model’s ability to flag potential SI joint disease to the reader, which is often overlooked, as well as [to see] how the model performs in larger datasets from other hospitals, vendors, and CT-reconstruction algorithms.”

Finally, Dr. Boesen pointed out that it would be interesting to see if the AI algorithm can detect different reasons for erosions. “Especially [for] separation between mechanical and inflammatory courses. This could potentially be done by automatically mapping the location of the erosions in the SI joints.”

Dr. Jans has now opened up the project to other radiologists to collaborate and provide images to train and test the algorithm further. “We now have 2.4 million images that have been enriched, and we will use these in the near future as we move beyond the proof-of-concept stage.

He is looking for as for as many partners as possible to help collect enriched images and develop this into a real tool for use in hospitals worldwide on clinical patients. “We have joined forces with several hospitals but continue looking for further collaborations.

“We need, just like self-driving cars, not just thousands, but tens of thousands or millions of images to develop this.”

Dr. Jans declared receiving speaker fees from UCB, AbbVie, Lilly, and Novartis, and that he is cofounder of a future spin-off of Ghent University RheumaFinder. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Boesen declared no relevant disclosures.
 

Erosions and ankylosis in patients with sacroiliitis are detectable to a high degree of accuracy on CT images using an artificial intelligence (AI)–based algorithm, according to research presented at the 13th International Congress on Spondyloarthritides.

Lennart Jans, MD, head of clinics in musculoskeletal imaging in the department of radiology at Ghent (Belgium) University Hospital, shared data on the development and validation of the algorithm for automatic detection of erosion and ankylosis on CT images of the sacroiliac (SI) joints.

Becky McCall/MDedge News

“Essentially, in terms of statistics, this AI algorithm has 95% sensitivity for picking up erosions in patients with clinical symptoms of sacroiliitis, and if this is further developed as a tool, it could aid detection in people with erosions that would otherwise go undetected and undiagnosed,” Dr. Jans said in an interview, stressing that the results were still preliminary.

“We want to move from reporting one patient at a time to a system that detects and helps to diagnose larger numbers of patients and makes a larger impact on patient outcomes.”

He stressed that, with thousands of images per patient, it is an impossible workload for any radiology department to read every image necessary to inform diagnoses, and this is only exacerbated by the shortage of rheumatologists, especially in the United States.

Denis Poddubnyy, MD, head of rheumatology at Charité University Hospital, Berlin, acknowledged that AI has potential to improve the recognition of changes indicative of spondyloarthritis (SpA) on imaging. “A standardized, valid, and reliable detection of those changes is relevant for both diagnosis, including differential diagnosis, and classification of SpA.”

Dr. Poddubnyy added that the AI-based algorithm developed by Dr. Jans and associates is designed to detect very specific SpA structural changes in the SI joints on CT. “CT is usually applied in the clinical practice after MRI ... normally in cases where MRI does not provide conclusive results,” he said. Since MRI scans have also been recently used to develop an AI-based algorithm for the detection of active inflammation – not captured by CT – and structural changes in SI joints, he noted that the “generated data on CT should be, therefore, seen in a broader context toward standardization of imaging findings detection.”
 

Proof-of-concept findings are due for scale-up

Dr. Jans acknowledged that the current data only establish proof of concept. Among the study’s 145 patients, 60% were used for training the AI algorithm and 40% for testing it. All patients who had clinical symptoms of sacroiliitis and had undergone a SI joint CT scan were included from two hospitals: Ghent University Hospital and the University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton. The majority of patients were female (81 of 145). They had a mean age of 40 years, 84 had diagnosed axial SpA, 15 had mechanical back pain, and 46 did not have a final diagnosis.

CT images were examined by three independent and blinded radiologists who annotated erosions more than 1 mm and ankylosis more than 2 mm, while a type of AI algorithm known as a neural network pipeline was developed to segment the SI joints and detect structural lesions.

In the first instance, Dr. Jans explained, examination of CT images using the AI algorithm from patients who enter the hospital for other reasons, such as trauma, rheumatic diseases, kidney stones, or appendicitis, might lead to the detection of otherwise unknown erosions. “Often patients have complained of backache for years, seeing various physiotherapists and similar, but had no idea what might be causing it,” he said. “We just don’t have the time for examining all the thousands of images separately. We need some kind of aid here. We need an extra pair of eyes. This is what AI software does.”

Dr. Jans said rheumatologists who ultimately want to detect and diagnose patients with SI erosions want to reduce the false-negative findings. “They want the system to pick up all the patients who have erosions. Here, the most important parameter is sensitivity, and we find that our algorithm shows a very high sensitivity. Optimization of the AI algorithm to reduce false negatives resulted in a sensitivity of 95% for detection of erosions on CT of the sacroiliac joints on a patient level.”

While overall accuracy was over 90%, Dr. Jans acknowledged that the algorithm was run in a relatively select population of dedicated CT scans of the joints. He is also aware that a good AI algorithm needs to work well across locations and populations. “If you make something within your institution alone, it will not work in a hospital on the other side of the street.”

However, he added, the researchers used images from four different CT scanners and images from two different institutions – one in Canada and their own in Belgium, providing a case mix that makes their algorithm more refined.
 

Next step: Test in an unselected population

When asked to comment on the study, Mikael Boesen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, congratulated Dr. Jans on the work and remarked that he found the research potentially clinically useful.

“The next steps would be to test the performance of the model in an unselected population of patients who have CT scans of the abdomen for other reasons to test the model’s ability to flag potential SI joint disease to the reader, which is often overlooked, as well as [to see] how the model performs in larger datasets from other hospitals, vendors, and CT-reconstruction algorithms.”

Finally, Dr. Boesen pointed out that it would be interesting to see if the AI algorithm can detect different reasons for erosions. “Especially [for] separation between mechanical and inflammatory courses. This could potentially be done by automatically mapping the location of the erosions in the SI joints.”

Dr. Jans has now opened up the project to other radiologists to collaborate and provide images to train and test the algorithm further. “We now have 2.4 million images that have been enriched, and we will use these in the near future as we move beyond the proof-of-concept stage.

He is looking for as for as many partners as possible to help collect enriched images and develop this into a real tool for use in hospitals worldwide on clinical patients. “We have joined forces with several hospitals but continue looking for further collaborations.

“We need, just like self-driving cars, not just thousands, but tens of thousands or millions of images to develop this.”

Dr. Jans declared receiving speaker fees from UCB, AbbVie, Lilly, and Novartis, and that he is cofounder of a future spin-off of Ghent University RheumaFinder. Dr. Poddubnyy and Dr. Boesen declared no relevant disclosures.
 

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

A new study provides evidence that two conditions that fall under the umbrella of spondyloarthritis – isolated axial disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and isolated axial disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) accompanied by psoriasis – are different clinical entities and may need different treatments. These relatively rare rheumatologic conditions, defined by their back involvement, have considerable clinical overlap and are often lumped together under the label axial spondyloarthritis.

This is a hot topic and current matter of debate within the scientific community: Are axial PsA and axial AS two separate diseases or just two phenotypes under the spondyloarthritis umbrella? said Fabian Proft, MD, a rheumatologist and researcher at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, commenting on the new study, which was published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

Both conditions belong to the spectrum of spondyloarthritis, but with varying viewpoints on nomenclature. They have intersections and overlaps, but not all treatments are equally effective for both. “We need to better understand their differences and similarities,” Dr. Proft said, adding that the new study is noteworthy for the size of the population included, its long-term follow-up data, and the researchers’ depth of experience treating these patients.

The researchers are based at the University of Toronto, which has separate clinics dedicated to PsA and to AS, said Dafna D. Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the university, codirector of the PsA clinic, and corresponding author for the new study. The two clinics follow the same standardized protocols, including clinical, radiographic, genetic, and laboratory assessments. Even though the patients present quite similarly, she credits referring physicians for recognizing the distinctions by their referrals to the PsA or AS clinic.

According to previous research, pure axial PsA, without peripheral involvement, is rare, affecting about 2%-5% of patients with PsA. For this study, an observational cohort of 1,576 patients from the PsA clinic included 31% (n = 495) with axial disease, 2% (n = 32) with isolated axial PsA, and 29% (n = 463) with both axial and peripheral involvement. A total of 25 of the patients with isolated axial PsA ultimately developed peripheral disease by their most recent clinic follow-up visit. In a second cohort of 1,688 patients with AS, nearly 5% (n = 68) had isolated axial disease with psoriasis.

“In our logistic regression analysis, isolated axial PsA was found to be a different clinical entity than isolated AS with psoriasis. They are not the same patients,” Dr. Gladman said. The patients with isolated axial PsA were older at diagnosis, more likely to have psoriatic nail lesions, and less likely to have inflammatory back pain than were patients with isolated axial AS and accompanying psoriasis.

When interviewed in early September, Dr. Gladman was preparing to fly to Ghent, Belgium, to participate in a debate at the International Congress on Spondyloarthritides, taking the pro position on the thesis: Is axial inflammation in PsA distinct from axial spondyloarthritis? Taking the con position was to be Robert Landewé, MD, PhD, of Amsterdam University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

“This is an old debate, splitters versus lumpers,” Dr. Gladman told this news organization. “My message is that when you place patients in more homogeneous groups, you can learn more and perhaps find better opportunities for treating their disease.” For example, even with the similarities, do these patients need to be treated with different medications? Medications for psoriasis, including those targeting the interleukin-23 cytokine, may not be effective for AS, but patients with axial PsA may not get them because of the association with axial AS.

“Now is the opportunity to really understand what – if any – are the differences between various components of this disease group. If you lump people together, you may miss the forest for the trees,” Dr. Gladman said. “If, at the end of the day, we find out these patients essentially are the same, I will lump. But until we have proved that there are no important differences, I will split.” She added that it is important for practicing rheumatologists to make the correct diagnosis so that they know to access certain drugs.

Dr. Proft credited Dr. Gladman and colleagues’ study for adding another piece of the puzzle to better understand differences and similarities for these two axial diseases. He noted, however, that the study did not include MRI scans for every participating patient, which could have given a deeper picture.

“International efforts are being made to recruit patients for a multinational, multicenter study of axial involvement in PsA,” which will include MRI data, Dr. Gladman said. She and Dr. Proft are both part of AXIS, the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis cohort, now recruiting patients for such a study. AXIS is a joint project of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

“We don’t have final answers yet, although we have given evidence to support the differences.” The proof is in the pudding, she said, and that pudding will be the clinical trials.

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation. The study authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Proft reported receiving research support from Novartis, Eli Lilly, and UCB, and fees for consulting and serving on speakers bureaus from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hexal, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.