User login
Mechanism does not matter for second-line biologic choice in JIA
MADRID – When biologic treatment is indicated after initial tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has failed, the mechanism of action of the second biologic does not appear to matter, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“There appears to be no difference in effectiveness outcomes or drug survival in patients starting a second TNF inhibitor versus an alternative class of biologic,” said Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, an epidemiologist at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England).
Indeed, at 6 months, there were no significant differences among patients who had switched from a TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor or to a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action in terms of:
- The change in Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS)-71 from baseline (mean score change, 7.3 with second TNF inhibitor vs. 8.5 with an alternative biologic class).
- The percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 90% response (22% vs. 15%).
- The proportion of patients achieving minimal disease activity (30% vs. 23%).
- The percentage reaching a minimal clinically important difference (MCID; 44% vs. 43%).
There was also no difference between switching to a TNF inhibitor or alternative biologic in terms of the duration of time patients remained treated with the second-line agent.
“After 1 year, 62% of patients remained on their biologic therapy, and when we looked at drug survival over the course of that year, there was no difference between the two cohorts,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet reported. There was no difference also in the reasons for stopping the second biologic.
“We now have a wide range of biologic therapies available; however, there is no evidence regarding which biologic should be prescribed [in JIA], and if patients switch, which order this should be,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet stated. Current NHS England guidelines recommend that most patients with JIA should start a TNF inhibitor (unless they are rheumatoid factor positive, in which case they should be treated with rituximab [Rituxan]), and if the first fails, to switch to a second TNF inhibitor rather than to change class. The evidence for this is limited, she noted, adding that adult guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis now recommended a change of class if not contraindicated.
Using data from two pediatric biologics registers – the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology Etanercept Cohort Study (BSPAR-ETN) and Biologics for Children with Rheumatic Diseases (BCRD) – Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet and her associates looked at data on 241 children and adolescents with polyarticular JIA (or oligoarticular-extended JIA) starting a second biologic. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of starting a second TNF inhibitor versus switching to an alternative class of agent, such as a B-cell depleting agent such as rituximab, in routine clinical practice.
A majority (n = 188; 78%) of patients had etanercept (Enbrel) as their starting TNF inhibitor and those switching to a second TNF inhibitor (n = 196) were most likely to be given adalimumab (Humira; 58%). Patients starting a biologic with another mode of action (n = 45) were most likely to be given the interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (73%), followed by rituximab in 13%, and abatacept (Orencia) in 11%. The main reasons for switching to another biologic – TNF inhibitor or otherwise – were ineffectiveness (60% with a second TNF inhibitor vs. 62% with another biologic drug class) or adverse events or intolerance (19% vs. 13%, respectively).
The strength of these data are that they come from a very large cohort of children and adolescents starting biologics for JIA, with systematic follow-up and robust statistical methods, Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet said. However, she noted that JIA was rare and that only one-fifth of patients would start a biologic, and just 30% of those patients would then switch to a second biologic.
“We don’t see any reason that the guidelines should be changed,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet observed. “However, repeat analysis with a larger sample size is required to reinforce whether there is any advantage of switching or not.”
Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK) and The British Society for Rheumatology provided funding support. Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Kearsley-Fleet L et al. Ann Rheum Dis, Jun 2019;8(Suppl 2):74-5. Abstract OP0016. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.415.
MADRID – When biologic treatment is indicated after initial tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has failed, the mechanism of action of the second biologic does not appear to matter, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“There appears to be no difference in effectiveness outcomes or drug survival in patients starting a second TNF inhibitor versus an alternative class of biologic,” said Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, an epidemiologist at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England).
Indeed, at 6 months, there were no significant differences among patients who had switched from a TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor or to a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action in terms of:
- The change in Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS)-71 from baseline (mean score change, 7.3 with second TNF inhibitor vs. 8.5 with an alternative biologic class).
- The percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 90% response (22% vs. 15%).
- The proportion of patients achieving minimal disease activity (30% vs. 23%).
- The percentage reaching a minimal clinically important difference (MCID; 44% vs. 43%).
There was also no difference between switching to a TNF inhibitor or alternative biologic in terms of the duration of time patients remained treated with the second-line agent.
“After 1 year, 62% of patients remained on their biologic therapy, and when we looked at drug survival over the course of that year, there was no difference between the two cohorts,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet reported. There was no difference also in the reasons for stopping the second biologic.
“We now have a wide range of biologic therapies available; however, there is no evidence regarding which biologic should be prescribed [in JIA], and if patients switch, which order this should be,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet stated. Current NHS England guidelines recommend that most patients with JIA should start a TNF inhibitor (unless they are rheumatoid factor positive, in which case they should be treated with rituximab [Rituxan]), and if the first fails, to switch to a second TNF inhibitor rather than to change class. The evidence for this is limited, she noted, adding that adult guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis now recommended a change of class if not contraindicated.
Using data from two pediatric biologics registers – the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology Etanercept Cohort Study (BSPAR-ETN) and Biologics for Children with Rheumatic Diseases (BCRD) – Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet and her associates looked at data on 241 children and adolescents with polyarticular JIA (or oligoarticular-extended JIA) starting a second biologic. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of starting a second TNF inhibitor versus switching to an alternative class of agent, such as a B-cell depleting agent such as rituximab, in routine clinical practice.
A majority (n = 188; 78%) of patients had etanercept (Enbrel) as their starting TNF inhibitor and those switching to a second TNF inhibitor (n = 196) were most likely to be given adalimumab (Humira; 58%). Patients starting a biologic with another mode of action (n = 45) were most likely to be given the interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (73%), followed by rituximab in 13%, and abatacept (Orencia) in 11%. The main reasons for switching to another biologic – TNF inhibitor or otherwise – were ineffectiveness (60% with a second TNF inhibitor vs. 62% with another biologic drug class) or adverse events or intolerance (19% vs. 13%, respectively).
The strength of these data are that they come from a very large cohort of children and adolescents starting biologics for JIA, with systematic follow-up and robust statistical methods, Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet said. However, she noted that JIA was rare and that only one-fifth of patients would start a biologic, and just 30% of those patients would then switch to a second biologic.
“We don’t see any reason that the guidelines should be changed,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet observed. “However, repeat analysis with a larger sample size is required to reinforce whether there is any advantage of switching or not.”
Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK) and The British Society for Rheumatology provided funding support. Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Kearsley-Fleet L et al. Ann Rheum Dis, Jun 2019;8(Suppl 2):74-5. Abstract OP0016. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.415.
MADRID – When biologic treatment is indicated after initial tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor therapy for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) has failed, the mechanism of action of the second biologic does not appear to matter, according to data presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“There appears to be no difference in effectiveness outcomes or drug survival in patients starting a second TNF inhibitor versus an alternative class of biologic,” said Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, an epidemiologist at the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis at the University of Manchester (England).
Indeed, at 6 months, there were no significant differences among patients who had switched from a TNF inhibitor to another TNF inhibitor or to a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action in terms of:
- The change in Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS)-71 from baseline (mean score change, 7.3 with second TNF inhibitor vs. 8.5 with an alternative biologic class).
- The percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 90% response (22% vs. 15%).
- The proportion of patients achieving minimal disease activity (30% vs. 23%).
- The percentage reaching a minimal clinically important difference (MCID; 44% vs. 43%).
There was also no difference between switching to a TNF inhibitor or alternative biologic in terms of the duration of time patients remained treated with the second-line agent.
“After 1 year, 62% of patients remained on their biologic therapy, and when we looked at drug survival over the course of that year, there was no difference between the two cohorts,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet reported. There was no difference also in the reasons for stopping the second biologic.
“We now have a wide range of biologic therapies available; however, there is no evidence regarding which biologic should be prescribed [in JIA], and if patients switch, which order this should be,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet stated. Current NHS England guidelines recommend that most patients with JIA should start a TNF inhibitor (unless they are rheumatoid factor positive, in which case they should be treated with rituximab [Rituxan]), and if the first fails, to switch to a second TNF inhibitor rather than to change class. The evidence for this is limited, she noted, adding that adult guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis now recommended a change of class if not contraindicated.
Using data from two pediatric biologics registers – the British Society for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology Etanercept Cohort Study (BSPAR-ETN) and Biologics for Children with Rheumatic Diseases (BCRD) – Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet and her associates looked at data on 241 children and adolescents with polyarticular JIA (or oligoarticular-extended JIA) starting a second biologic. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of starting a second TNF inhibitor versus switching to an alternative class of agent, such as a B-cell depleting agent such as rituximab, in routine clinical practice.
A majority (n = 188; 78%) of patients had etanercept (Enbrel) as their starting TNF inhibitor and those switching to a second TNF inhibitor (n = 196) were most likely to be given adalimumab (Humira; 58%). Patients starting a biologic with another mode of action (n = 45) were most likely to be given the interleukin-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (73%), followed by rituximab in 13%, and abatacept (Orencia) in 11%. The main reasons for switching to another biologic – TNF inhibitor or otherwise – were ineffectiveness (60% with a second TNF inhibitor vs. 62% with another biologic drug class) or adverse events or intolerance (19% vs. 13%, respectively).
The strength of these data are that they come from a very large cohort of children and adolescents starting biologics for JIA, with systematic follow-up and robust statistical methods, Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet said. However, she noted that JIA was rare and that only one-fifth of patients would start a biologic, and just 30% of those patients would then switch to a second biologic.
“We don’t see any reason that the guidelines should be changed,” Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet observed. “However, repeat analysis with a larger sample size is required to reinforce whether there is any advantage of switching or not.”
Versus Arthritis (formerly Arthritis Research UK) and The British Society for Rheumatology provided funding support. Mrs. Kearsley-Fleet had no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
SOURCE: Kearsley-Fleet L et al. Ann Rheum Dis, Jun 2019;8(Suppl 2):74-5. Abstract OP0016. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.415.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 Congress
Osteoporosis, osteoarthritis risk high among cerebral palsy patients
compared with adults without the disorder, according to a study published in Bone.
Neil E. O’Connell, PhD, of Brunel University London, and colleagues assessed the risks of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases in a population-based cohort study that used data collected by the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 1987-2015. The study included 1,705 patients with CP and 5,115 patients matched for age, sex, and general practices; data on smoking status and alcohol consumption for many of the patients also were gathered.
After adjustment for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and mean yearly general practice visits, investigators found evidence of significantly increased risk for osteoarthritis (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.02; P = .002) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.19; 95% CI, 3.37-11.39; P less than .001); they did not see increased risk for inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .731).
One limitation of the study is the risk for residual confounding given the investigators could not account for mobility status or physical activity. Other limitations include potential incompleteness of diagnostic code lists, how identification of cases is depending on quality of original recording in the database, and that data regarding smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for a substantial proportion of patients.
“Despite previous studies identifying a high prevalence of joint pain and functional deterioration among people with CP, there is a dearth of literature on the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in this population,” they wrote. “Further research is required into effective management of these conditions in adults with CP.”
This study was supported by an interdisciplinary award from Brunel University London’s Research Catalyst Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.
SOURCE: O’Connell NE et al. Bone. 2019 Aug;125:30-5.
compared with adults without the disorder, according to a study published in Bone.
Neil E. O’Connell, PhD, of Brunel University London, and colleagues assessed the risks of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases in a population-based cohort study that used data collected by the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 1987-2015. The study included 1,705 patients with CP and 5,115 patients matched for age, sex, and general practices; data on smoking status and alcohol consumption for many of the patients also were gathered.
After adjustment for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and mean yearly general practice visits, investigators found evidence of significantly increased risk for osteoarthritis (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.02; P = .002) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.19; 95% CI, 3.37-11.39; P less than .001); they did not see increased risk for inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .731).
One limitation of the study is the risk for residual confounding given the investigators could not account for mobility status or physical activity. Other limitations include potential incompleteness of diagnostic code lists, how identification of cases is depending on quality of original recording in the database, and that data regarding smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for a substantial proportion of patients.
“Despite previous studies identifying a high prevalence of joint pain and functional deterioration among people with CP, there is a dearth of literature on the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in this population,” they wrote. “Further research is required into effective management of these conditions in adults with CP.”
This study was supported by an interdisciplinary award from Brunel University London’s Research Catalyst Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.
SOURCE: O’Connell NE et al. Bone. 2019 Aug;125:30-5.
compared with adults without the disorder, according to a study published in Bone.
Neil E. O’Connell, PhD, of Brunel University London, and colleagues assessed the risks of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases in a population-based cohort study that used data collected by the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 1987-2015. The study included 1,705 patients with CP and 5,115 patients matched for age, sex, and general practices; data on smoking status and alcohol consumption for many of the patients also were gathered.
After adjustment for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and mean yearly general practice visits, investigators found evidence of significantly increased risk for osteoarthritis (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.02; P = .002) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.19; 95% CI, 3.37-11.39; P less than .001); they did not see increased risk for inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .731).
One limitation of the study is the risk for residual confounding given the investigators could not account for mobility status or physical activity. Other limitations include potential incompleteness of diagnostic code lists, how identification of cases is depending on quality of original recording in the database, and that data regarding smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for a substantial proportion of patients.
“Despite previous studies identifying a high prevalence of joint pain and functional deterioration among people with CP, there is a dearth of literature on the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in this population,” they wrote. “Further research is required into effective management of these conditions in adults with CP.”
This study was supported by an interdisciplinary award from Brunel University London’s Research Catalyst Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.
SOURCE: O’Connell NE et al. Bone. 2019 Aug;125:30-5.
FROM BONE
Emapalumab produces major responses in macrophage activation syndrome
MADRID – Initial results of an ongoing small pilot study of the anti-interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) monoclonal antibody emapalumab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of glucocorticoid-refractory macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).
“By week 4 there was a complete response in all six patients treated. All of them had failed conventional therapy,” Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results are the first of a multicenter, pilot study with twin protocols in Europe and North America. Emapalumab (Gamifant) is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) unresponsive to conventional therapy.
The study is enrolling children with MAS complicating SJIA that is unresponsive to high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids. Emapalumab, which has been shown to neutralize IFN-gamma in animal models, is being administered in an initial dose of 6 mg/kg followed by doses of 3 mg/kg every 3 days for 4 weeks.
MAS is a common complication of rheumatic diseases, particularly SJIA, according to Dr. De Benedetti. It has been characterized as a secondary form of HLH involving an excessive activation and expansion of macrophages as well as T cells. It can produce a wide variety of complications, including hepatosplenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities. If uncontrolled, it can lead to organ failure and death.
Among the first six patients, four had confirmed SJIA and two had presumptive SJIA. The average age was 11 years with a range of 2 to 25 years. Four of the patients were female.
Many of the patients had failed therapies in addition to glucocorticoids, such as cyclosporine and anakinra. A diagnosis of HLH and prior treatment with a biologic therapy were exclusion criteria.
By 8 weeks, six had a complete response, which included the resolution of symptoms by normalization of ferritin, liver enzymes, and D-dimers. In three of the six patients, a complete response was achieved by week 4.
“Steroid tapering by investigator discretion was permitted, and four of the six patients had a meaningful tapering of steroids within 8 weeks,” Dr. De Benedetti reported.
Of the three serious adverse events recorded so far, only reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was attributed to emapalumab. This infection resolved with treatment. Several other infections observed over the course of the study were not thought to be related to treatment.
The initial results have encouraged an expansion of the study protocol in Europe where several treatment centers are expected to begin enrolling patients shortly. A second parallel study protocol will begin soon in North America, but no patient had been treated at the time that Dr. De Benedetti presented these initial findings.
Based on evidence that IFN-gamma drives hyperinflammation and hypercytokinemia in MAS, the initial results with emapalumab are encouraging, according to Dr. De Benedetti. He said the results not only provide evidence that emapalumab is active in MAS but support the pathogenic role of IFN-gamma in this disease.
Dr. De Benedetti reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including SOBI, the sponsor of this study.
SOURCE: De Benedetti F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2):178. Abstract OPO204, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3341.
MADRID – Initial results of an ongoing small pilot study of the anti-interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) monoclonal antibody emapalumab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of glucocorticoid-refractory macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).
“By week 4 there was a complete response in all six patients treated. All of them had failed conventional therapy,” Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results are the first of a multicenter, pilot study with twin protocols in Europe and North America. Emapalumab (Gamifant) is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) unresponsive to conventional therapy.
The study is enrolling children with MAS complicating SJIA that is unresponsive to high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids. Emapalumab, which has been shown to neutralize IFN-gamma in animal models, is being administered in an initial dose of 6 mg/kg followed by doses of 3 mg/kg every 3 days for 4 weeks.
MAS is a common complication of rheumatic diseases, particularly SJIA, according to Dr. De Benedetti. It has been characterized as a secondary form of HLH involving an excessive activation and expansion of macrophages as well as T cells. It can produce a wide variety of complications, including hepatosplenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities. If uncontrolled, it can lead to organ failure and death.
Among the first six patients, four had confirmed SJIA and two had presumptive SJIA. The average age was 11 years with a range of 2 to 25 years. Four of the patients were female.
Many of the patients had failed therapies in addition to glucocorticoids, such as cyclosporine and anakinra. A diagnosis of HLH and prior treatment with a biologic therapy were exclusion criteria.
By 8 weeks, six had a complete response, which included the resolution of symptoms by normalization of ferritin, liver enzymes, and D-dimers. In three of the six patients, a complete response was achieved by week 4.
“Steroid tapering by investigator discretion was permitted, and four of the six patients had a meaningful tapering of steroids within 8 weeks,” Dr. De Benedetti reported.
Of the three serious adverse events recorded so far, only reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was attributed to emapalumab. This infection resolved with treatment. Several other infections observed over the course of the study were not thought to be related to treatment.
The initial results have encouraged an expansion of the study protocol in Europe where several treatment centers are expected to begin enrolling patients shortly. A second parallel study protocol will begin soon in North America, but no patient had been treated at the time that Dr. De Benedetti presented these initial findings.
Based on evidence that IFN-gamma drives hyperinflammation and hypercytokinemia in MAS, the initial results with emapalumab are encouraging, according to Dr. De Benedetti. He said the results not only provide evidence that emapalumab is active in MAS but support the pathogenic role of IFN-gamma in this disease.
Dr. De Benedetti reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including SOBI, the sponsor of this study.
SOURCE: De Benedetti F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2):178. Abstract OPO204, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3341.
MADRID – Initial results of an ongoing small pilot study of the anti-interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) monoclonal antibody emapalumab has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of glucocorticoid-refractory macrophage activation syndrome (MAS) in patients with systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (SJIA).
“By week 4 there was a complete response in all six patients treated. All of them had failed conventional therapy,” Fabrizio De Benedetti, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Rome, reported at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results are the first of a multicenter, pilot study with twin protocols in Europe and North America. Emapalumab (Gamifant) is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) unresponsive to conventional therapy.
The study is enrolling children with MAS complicating SJIA that is unresponsive to high-dose intravenous glucocorticoids. Emapalumab, which has been shown to neutralize IFN-gamma in animal models, is being administered in an initial dose of 6 mg/kg followed by doses of 3 mg/kg every 3 days for 4 weeks.
MAS is a common complication of rheumatic diseases, particularly SJIA, according to Dr. De Benedetti. It has been characterized as a secondary form of HLH involving an excessive activation and expansion of macrophages as well as T cells. It can produce a wide variety of complications, including hepatosplenomegaly, liver dysfunction, and coagulation abnormalities. If uncontrolled, it can lead to organ failure and death.
Among the first six patients, four had confirmed SJIA and two had presumptive SJIA. The average age was 11 years with a range of 2 to 25 years. Four of the patients were female.
Many of the patients had failed therapies in addition to glucocorticoids, such as cyclosporine and anakinra. A diagnosis of HLH and prior treatment with a biologic therapy were exclusion criteria.
By 8 weeks, six had a complete response, which included the resolution of symptoms by normalization of ferritin, liver enzymes, and D-dimers. In three of the six patients, a complete response was achieved by week 4.
“Steroid tapering by investigator discretion was permitted, and four of the six patients had a meaningful tapering of steroids within 8 weeks,” Dr. De Benedetti reported.
Of the three serious adverse events recorded so far, only reactivation of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was attributed to emapalumab. This infection resolved with treatment. Several other infections observed over the course of the study were not thought to be related to treatment.
The initial results have encouraged an expansion of the study protocol in Europe where several treatment centers are expected to begin enrolling patients shortly. A second parallel study protocol will begin soon in North America, but no patient had been treated at the time that Dr. De Benedetti presented these initial findings.
Based on evidence that IFN-gamma drives hyperinflammation and hypercytokinemia in MAS, the initial results with emapalumab are encouraging, according to Dr. De Benedetti. He said the results not only provide evidence that emapalumab is active in MAS but support the pathogenic role of IFN-gamma in this disease.
Dr. De Benedetti reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies, including SOBI, the sponsor of this study.
SOURCE: De Benedetti F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl2):178. Abstract OPO204, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3341.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Efforts toward producing CNO/CRMO classification criteria show first results
MADRID – according to recent findings from international surveys of pediatric rheumatologists that were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Melissa Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, and colleagues recently undertook the multiphase study as part of an international collaborative effort led by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance to establish consensus-based diagnostic and classification criteria for CNO, an autoinflammatory bone disease of unknown cause that primarily affects children and adolescents. CNO is also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). If this disease is not diagnosed and treated appropriately in a timely fashion, damage and long-term disability is possible. In the absence of widely accepted, consensus-driven criteria, treatment is based largely on expert opinion, Dr. Oliver explained in an interview.
“There is an urgent need for a new and more robust set of classification criteria for CRMO, based on large expert consensus and the analysis of a large sample of patients and controls,” she said.
There are two proposed diagnostic criteria, the 2007 classification of nonbacterial osteitis and the 2016 Bristol diagnostic criteria for CRMO, but both are derived from single-center cohort studies and have not been validated, Dr. Oliver explained.
The list of candidate items that have come out of the study is moving clinicians a step closer toward the design of a practical patient data collection form that appropriately weighs each item included in the classification criteria.
The study employed anonymous survey and nominal group techniques with the goal of developing a set of classification criteria sensitive and specific enough to identify CRMO/CNO patients. In phase 1, a Delphi survey was administered among international rheumatologists to generate candidate criteria items. Phase 2 sought to reduce candidate criteria items through consensus processes via input from physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
Altogether, 259 of 865 pediatric rheumatologists (30%) completed an online questionnaire addressing features key to the classification of CNO, including 77 who practice in Europe (30%), 132 in North America (51%), and 50 on other continents (19%). Of these, 138 (53%) had greater than 10 years of clinical practice experience, and 108 (42%) had managed more than 10 CNO patients.
Initially, Dr. Oliver and colleagues identified 33 candidate criteria items that fell into six domains: clinical presentation, physical exam, laboratory findings, imaging findings, bone biopsy, and treatment response. The top eight weighted items that increased the likelihood of CNO/CRMO were exclusion of malignancy by bone biopsy; multifocal bone lesions; presence of bone pain, swelling, and/or warmth; signs of fibrosis and/or inflammation on bone biopsy; typical location of CNO/CRMO lesion, such as the clavicle, metaphysis of long bones, the mandible, and vertebrae; presence of CNO/CRMO–related comorbidities; normal C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); and typical MRI findings of CNO/CRMO.
By phase 2, candidate items, which were presented to 39 rheumatologists and 7 parents, were refined or eliminated using item-reduction techniques. A second survey was issued to 77 of 82 members of a work group so that the remaining items could be ranked by their power of distinguishing CNO from conditions that merely mimicked the disease. The greatest mean discriminatory scores were identified with multifocal lesions (ruling out malignancy and infection) and typical location on imaging. Normal C-reactive protein and/or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate more than three times the upper limit of normal had the greatest negative mean discriminatory scores.
The next steps will be to form an expert panel who will use 1000minds software to determine the final criteria and identify a threshold for disease. The investigators hope to build a large multinational case repository of at least 500 patients with CNO/CRMO and 500 patients with mimicking conditions from which to derive a development cohort and an external validation cohort. So far, 10 sites, including 4 in Europe, have obtained approval from an institutional review board. The group has also submitted a proposal for classification criteria to the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, Dr. Oliver said.
Dr. Oliver had no disclosures to report, but several coauthors reported financial ties to industry.
SOURCE: Oliver M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):254-5, Abstract OP0342. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1539.
MADRID – according to recent findings from international surveys of pediatric rheumatologists that were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Melissa Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, and colleagues recently undertook the multiphase study as part of an international collaborative effort led by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance to establish consensus-based diagnostic and classification criteria for CNO, an autoinflammatory bone disease of unknown cause that primarily affects children and adolescents. CNO is also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). If this disease is not diagnosed and treated appropriately in a timely fashion, damage and long-term disability is possible. In the absence of widely accepted, consensus-driven criteria, treatment is based largely on expert opinion, Dr. Oliver explained in an interview.
“There is an urgent need for a new and more robust set of classification criteria for CRMO, based on large expert consensus and the analysis of a large sample of patients and controls,” she said.
There are two proposed diagnostic criteria, the 2007 classification of nonbacterial osteitis and the 2016 Bristol diagnostic criteria for CRMO, but both are derived from single-center cohort studies and have not been validated, Dr. Oliver explained.
The list of candidate items that have come out of the study is moving clinicians a step closer toward the design of a practical patient data collection form that appropriately weighs each item included in the classification criteria.
The study employed anonymous survey and nominal group techniques with the goal of developing a set of classification criteria sensitive and specific enough to identify CRMO/CNO patients. In phase 1, a Delphi survey was administered among international rheumatologists to generate candidate criteria items. Phase 2 sought to reduce candidate criteria items through consensus processes via input from physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
Altogether, 259 of 865 pediatric rheumatologists (30%) completed an online questionnaire addressing features key to the classification of CNO, including 77 who practice in Europe (30%), 132 in North America (51%), and 50 on other continents (19%). Of these, 138 (53%) had greater than 10 years of clinical practice experience, and 108 (42%) had managed more than 10 CNO patients.
Initially, Dr. Oliver and colleagues identified 33 candidate criteria items that fell into six domains: clinical presentation, physical exam, laboratory findings, imaging findings, bone biopsy, and treatment response. The top eight weighted items that increased the likelihood of CNO/CRMO were exclusion of malignancy by bone biopsy; multifocal bone lesions; presence of bone pain, swelling, and/or warmth; signs of fibrosis and/or inflammation on bone biopsy; typical location of CNO/CRMO lesion, such as the clavicle, metaphysis of long bones, the mandible, and vertebrae; presence of CNO/CRMO–related comorbidities; normal C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); and typical MRI findings of CNO/CRMO.
By phase 2, candidate items, which were presented to 39 rheumatologists and 7 parents, were refined or eliminated using item-reduction techniques. A second survey was issued to 77 of 82 members of a work group so that the remaining items could be ranked by their power of distinguishing CNO from conditions that merely mimicked the disease. The greatest mean discriminatory scores were identified with multifocal lesions (ruling out malignancy and infection) and typical location on imaging. Normal C-reactive protein and/or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate more than three times the upper limit of normal had the greatest negative mean discriminatory scores.
The next steps will be to form an expert panel who will use 1000minds software to determine the final criteria and identify a threshold for disease. The investigators hope to build a large multinational case repository of at least 500 patients with CNO/CRMO and 500 patients with mimicking conditions from which to derive a development cohort and an external validation cohort. So far, 10 sites, including 4 in Europe, have obtained approval from an institutional review board. The group has also submitted a proposal for classification criteria to the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, Dr. Oliver said.
Dr. Oliver had no disclosures to report, but several coauthors reported financial ties to industry.
SOURCE: Oliver M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):254-5, Abstract OP0342. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1539.
MADRID – according to recent findings from international surveys of pediatric rheumatologists that were presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
Melissa Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, and colleagues recently undertook the multiphase study as part of an international collaborative effort led by the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance to establish consensus-based diagnostic and classification criteria for CNO, an autoinflammatory bone disease of unknown cause that primarily affects children and adolescents. CNO is also known as chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO). If this disease is not diagnosed and treated appropriately in a timely fashion, damage and long-term disability is possible. In the absence of widely accepted, consensus-driven criteria, treatment is based largely on expert opinion, Dr. Oliver explained in an interview.
“There is an urgent need for a new and more robust set of classification criteria for CRMO, based on large expert consensus and the analysis of a large sample of patients and controls,” she said.
There are two proposed diagnostic criteria, the 2007 classification of nonbacterial osteitis and the 2016 Bristol diagnostic criteria for CRMO, but both are derived from single-center cohort studies and have not been validated, Dr. Oliver explained.
The list of candidate items that have come out of the study is moving clinicians a step closer toward the design of a practical patient data collection form that appropriately weighs each item included in the classification criteria.
The study employed anonymous survey and nominal group techniques with the goal of developing a set of classification criteria sensitive and specific enough to identify CRMO/CNO patients. In phase 1, a Delphi survey was administered among international rheumatologists to generate candidate criteria items. Phase 2 sought to reduce candidate criteria items through consensus processes via input from physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
Altogether, 259 of 865 pediatric rheumatologists (30%) completed an online questionnaire addressing features key to the classification of CNO, including 77 who practice in Europe (30%), 132 in North America (51%), and 50 on other continents (19%). Of these, 138 (53%) had greater than 10 years of clinical practice experience, and 108 (42%) had managed more than 10 CNO patients.
Initially, Dr. Oliver and colleagues identified 33 candidate criteria items that fell into six domains: clinical presentation, physical exam, laboratory findings, imaging findings, bone biopsy, and treatment response. The top eight weighted items that increased the likelihood of CNO/CRMO were exclusion of malignancy by bone biopsy; multifocal bone lesions; presence of bone pain, swelling, and/or warmth; signs of fibrosis and/or inflammation on bone biopsy; typical location of CNO/CRMO lesion, such as the clavicle, metaphysis of long bones, the mandible, and vertebrae; presence of CNO/CRMO–related comorbidities; normal C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); and typical MRI findings of CNO/CRMO.
By phase 2, candidate items, which were presented to 39 rheumatologists and 7 parents, were refined or eliminated using item-reduction techniques. A second survey was issued to 77 of 82 members of a work group so that the remaining items could be ranked by their power of distinguishing CNO from conditions that merely mimicked the disease. The greatest mean discriminatory scores were identified with multifocal lesions (ruling out malignancy and infection) and typical location on imaging. Normal C-reactive protein and/or an erythrocyte sedimentation rate more than three times the upper limit of normal had the greatest negative mean discriminatory scores.
The next steps will be to form an expert panel who will use 1000minds software to determine the final criteria and identify a threshold for disease. The investigators hope to build a large multinational case repository of at least 500 patients with CNO/CRMO and 500 patients with mimicking conditions from which to derive a development cohort and an external validation cohort. So far, 10 sites, including 4 in Europe, have obtained approval from an institutional review board. The group has also submitted a proposal for classification criteria to the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism, Dr. Oliver said.
Dr. Oliver had no disclosures to report, but several coauthors reported financial ties to industry.
SOURCE: Oliver M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):254-5, Abstract OP0342. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1539.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Bone Health in Kidney Disease
Q) What are the current recommendations for the use of DXA and bisphosphonates in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease?
For patients with kidney disease, mineral and bone disorder (MBD) is a common complication, affecting the majority of those with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; see Table 1).1,2 CKD-MBD is a systemic disorder that encompasses abnormalities in mineral metabolism, skeletal health, and soft-tissue calcifications.1,2 It manifests as one or more of the following:
- Abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or vitamin D metabolism
- Abnormalities in bone turnover, mineralization, volume, linear growth, or strength
- Vascular or other soft-tissue calcification.2
The Figure provides an illustration of the effect of CKD on bone health: In the general population, risk for hip fracture increases with age; risk is further exacerbated in those who have CKD.3
To assess for fracture risk in patients with advanced stages of CKD (3-5) who have evidence of CKD-MBD and/or risk factors for osteoporosis, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group recommends bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).2 Bone biopsy—the gold standard for diagnosis of renal osteodystrophy, a form of osteoporosis and one type of bone abnormality seen in CKD-MBD—is “reasonable” to perform in cases in which knowing the type of renal osteodystrophy would inform treatment choices.2 KDIGO also recognizes limitations in the ability to perform a bone biopsy and therefore recommends monitoring serial PTH and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase to evaluate for bone disease.2
Prevention of fractures and treatment of patients with CKD-MDB has historically been challenging, since many of the available pharmacologic agents have not been developed for or studied in patients with CKD.1 According to KDIGO, it is acceptable for patients with CKD stages 1 and 2 to receive the same osteoporosis/fracture risk management as recommended for the general population.2 Patients with CKD stages 3a and 3b can also receive treatment as recommended for the general population, as long as the patient’s PTH level is in normal range.2 Table 2 outlines the FDA-approved glomerular filtration rate cutoffs for some bisphosphonates commonly used to treat osteoporosis.
Before initiating treatment for CKD-associated osteoporosis, no matter what the stage, it is important to manage vitamin D deficiency, hyperphosphatemia, and hyperparathyroidism.1 In CKD patients with abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, PTH, and/or vitamin D, involve the nephrology team to assist in providing MBD care. Different approaches to treatment may include, but are not limited to, adjusting phosphorus binders; using vitamin D supplements or analogs; using calcimimetics; prescribing dialysis; providing dietary education; and addressing medication costs.
1. Khairallah P, Nickolas TL. Management of osteoporosis in CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(6):962-969.
2. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Update Work Group. KDIGO 2017 clinical practice guideline update for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2017;7:1-59.
3. Moe SM, Nickolas TL. Fractures in patients with CKD: time for action. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(11):1929-1931.
Clinician Reviews in partnership with
The National Kidney Foundation Council of Advanced Practitioners' (NKF-CAP) mission is to serve as an advisory resource for the NKF, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and the community in advancing the care, treatment, and education of patients with kidney disease and their families. CAP is an advocate for professional development, research, and health policies that impact the delivery of patient care and professional practice. For more information on NKF-CAP, visit www.kidney.org/CAP. Renal Consult is edited by Jane S. Davis, CRNP, DNP, a member of the Clinician Reviews editorial board, who is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is the communications chairperson for the National Kidney Foundation’s Council of Advanced Practitioners (NKFCAP); and Kim Zuber, PA-C, MSPS, DFAAPA, a semiretired PA who works with the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and is a past chair of the NKF-CAP. Clinician Reviews is the proud recipient of NKF-CAP’s Nostradamus Award, recognizing the journal’s forethought and vision in supporting the contributions of Advanced Practitioners in nephrology. This month's column was authored by Rebecca Grillo, PA-C, RD, LD/N, who practices at the Renal Hypertension Center in Spring Hill, Florida.
Clinician Reviews in partnership with
The National Kidney Foundation Council of Advanced Practitioners' (NKF-CAP) mission is to serve as an advisory resource for the NKF, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and the community in advancing the care, treatment, and education of patients with kidney disease and their families. CAP is an advocate for professional development, research, and health policies that impact the delivery of patient care and professional practice. For more information on NKF-CAP, visit www.kidney.org/CAP. Renal Consult is edited by Jane S. Davis, CRNP, DNP, a member of the Clinician Reviews editorial board, who is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is the communications chairperson for the National Kidney Foundation’s Council of Advanced Practitioners (NKFCAP); and Kim Zuber, PA-C, MSPS, DFAAPA, a semiretired PA who works with the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and is a past chair of the NKF-CAP. Clinician Reviews is the proud recipient of NKF-CAP’s Nostradamus Award, recognizing the journal’s forethought and vision in supporting the contributions of Advanced Practitioners in nephrology. This month's column was authored by Rebecca Grillo, PA-C, RD, LD/N, who practices at the Renal Hypertension Center in Spring Hill, Florida.
Clinician Reviews in partnership with
The National Kidney Foundation Council of Advanced Practitioners' (NKF-CAP) mission is to serve as an advisory resource for the NKF, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and the community in advancing the care, treatment, and education of patients with kidney disease and their families. CAP is an advocate for professional development, research, and health policies that impact the delivery of patient care and professional practice. For more information on NKF-CAP, visit www.kidney.org/CAP. Renal Consult is edited by Jane S. Davis, CRNP, DNP, a member of the Clinician Reviews editorial board, who is a nurse practitioner in the Division of Nephrology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and is the communications chairperson for the National Kidney Foundation’s Council of Advanced Practitioners (NKFCAP); and Kim Zuber, PA-C, MSPS, DFAAPA, a semiretired PA who works with the American Academy of Nephrology PAs and is a past chair of the NKF-CAP. Clinician Reviews is the proud recipient of NKF-CAP’s Nostradamus Award, recognizing the journal’s forethought and vision in supporting the contributions of Advanced Practitioners in nephrology. This month's column was authored by Rebecca Grillo, PA-C, RD, LD/N, who practices at the Renal Hypertension Center in Spring Hill, Florida.
Q) What are the current recommendations for the use of DXA and bisphosphonates in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease?
For patients with kidney disease, mineral and bone disorder (MBD) is a common complication, affecting the majority of those with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; see Table 1).1,2 CKD-MBD is a systemic disorder that encompasses abnormalities in mineral metabolism, skeletal health, and soft-tissue calcifications.1,2 It manifests as one or more of the following:
- Abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or vitamin D metabolism
- Abnormalities in bone turnover, mineralization, volume, linear growth, or strength
- Vascular or other soft-tissue calcification.2
The Figure provides an illustration of the effect of CKD on bone health: In the general population, risk for hip fracture increases with age; risk is further exacerbated in those who have CKD.3
To assess for fracture risk in patients with advanced stages of CKD (3-5) who have evidence of CKD-MBD and/or risk factors for osteoporosis, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group recommends bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).2 Bone biopsy—the gold standard for diagnosis of renal osteodystrophy, a form of osteoporosis and one type of bone abnormality seen in CKD-MBD—is “reasonable” to perform in cases in which knowing the type of renal osteodystrophy would inform treatment choices.2 KDIGO also recognizes limitations in the ability to perform a bone biopsy and therefore recommends monitoring serial PTH and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase to evaluate for bone disease.2
Prevention of fractures and treatment of patients with CKD-MDB has historically been challenging, since many of the available pharmacologic agents have not been developed for or studied in patients with CKD.1 According to KDIGO, it is acceptable for patients with CKD stages 1 and 2 to receive the same osteoporosis/fracture risk management as recommended for the general population.2 Patients with CKD stages 3a and 3b can also receive treatment as recommended for the general population, as long as the patient’s PTH level is in normal range.2 Table 2 outlines the FDA-approved glomerular filtration rate cutoffs for some bisphosphonates commonly used to treat osteoporosis.
Before initiating treatment for CKD-associated osteoporosis, no matter what the stage, it is important to manage vitamin D deficiency, hyperphosphatemia, and hyperparathyroidism.1 In CKD patients with abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, PTH, and/or vitamin D, involve the nephrology team to assist in providing MBD care. Different approaches to treatment may include, but are not limited to, adjusting phosphorus binders; using vitamin D supplements or analogs; using calcimimetics; prescribing dialysis; providing dietary education; and addressing medication costs.
Q) What are the current recommendations for the use of DXA and bisphosphonates in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease?
For patients with kidney disease, mineral and bone disorder (MBD) is a common complication, affecting the majority of those with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; see Table 1).1,2 CKD-MBD is a systemic disorder that encompasses abnormalities in mineral metabolism, skeletal health, and soft-tissue calcifications.1,2 It manifests as one or more of the following:
- Abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone (PTH), or vitamin D metabolism
- Abnormalities in bone turnover, mineralization, volume, linear growth, or strength
- Vascular or other soft-tissue calcification.2
The Figure provides an illustration of the effect of CKD on bone health: In the general population, risk for hip fracture increases with age; risk is further exacerbated in those who have CKD.3
To assess for fracture risk in patients with advanced stages of CKD (3-5) who have evidence of CKD-MBD and/or risk factors for osteoporosis, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group recommends bone mineral density testing with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).2 Bone biopsy—the gold standard for diagnosis of renal osteodystrophy, a form of osteoporosis and one type of bone abnormality seen in CKD-MBD—is “reasonable” to perform in cases in which knowing the type of renal osteodystrophy would inform treatment choices.2 KDIGO also recognizes limitations in the ability to perform a bone biopsy and therefore recommends monitoring serial PTH and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase to evaluate for bone disease.2
Prevention of fractures and treatment of patients with CKD-MDB has historically been challenging, since many of the available pharmacologic agents have not been developed for or studied in patients with CKD.1 According to KDIGO, it is acceptable for patients with CKD stages 1 and 2 to receive the same osteoporosis/fracture risk management as recommended for the general population.2 Patients with CKD stages 3a and 3b can also receive treatment as recommended for the general population, as long as the patient’s PTH level is in normal range.2 Table 2 outlines the FDA-approved glomerular filtration rate cutoffs for some bisphosphonates commonly used to treat osteoporosis.
Before initiating treatment for CKD-associated osteoporosis, no matter what the stage, it is important to manage vitamin D deficiency, hyperphosphatemia, and hyperparathyroidism.1 In CKD patients with abnormalities of calcium, phosphorus, PTH, and/or vitamin D, involve the nephrology team to assist in providing MBD care. Different approaches to treatment may include, but are not limited to, adjusting phosphorus binders; using vitamin D supplements or analogs; using calcimimetics; prescribing dialysis; providing dietary education; and addressing medication costs.
1. Khairallah P, Nickolas TL. Management of osteoporosis in CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(6):962-969.
2. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Update Work Group. KDIGO 2017 clinical practice guideline update for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2017;7:1-59.
3. Moe SM, Nickolas TL. Fractures in patients with CKD: time for action. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(11):1929-1931.
1. Khairallah P, Nickolas TL. Management of osteoporosis in CKD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13(6):962-969.
2. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Update Work Group. KDIGO 2017 clinical practice guideline update for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int Suppl. 2017;7:1-59.
3. Moe SM, Nickolas TL. Fractures in patients with CKD: time for action. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(11):1929-1931.
When adolescents visit the ED, 10% leave with an opioid
although there was a small but significant decrease in prescriptions over that time, according to an analysis of two nationwide ambulatory care surveys.
For adolescents aged 13-17 years, 10.4% of ED visits were associated with a prescription for an opioid versus 1.6% among outpatient visits. There was a slight but significant decrease in the rate of opioid prescriptions in the ED setting over the study period, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97), but there was no significant change in the trend over time in the outpatient setting (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.09), Joel D. Hudgins, MD, and associates reported in Pediatrics.
“Opioid prescribing in ambulatory care visits is particularly high in the ED setting and … certain diagnoses appear to be routinely treated with an opioid,” said Dr. Hudgins and associates from Boston Children’s Hospital.
The highest rates of opioid prescribing among adolescents visiting the ED involved dental disorders (60%) and acute injuries such as fractures of the clavicle (47%), ankle (38%), and metacarpals (36%). “However, when considering the total volume of opioid prescriptions dispensed [over 7.8 million during 2005-2015], certain common conditions, including abdominal pain, acute pharyngitis, urinary tract infection, and headache, contributed large numbers of prescriptions as well,” they added.
The study involved data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (hospital-based EDs) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (office-based practices), which both are conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The senior investigator is supported by an award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The authors said that they have no relevant financial relationships.
SOURCE: Hudgins JD et al. Pediatrics. 2019 June. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1578.
although there was a small but significant decrease in prescriptions over that time, according to an analysis of two nationwide ambulatory care surveys.
For adolescents aged 13-17 years, 10.4% of ED visits were associated with a prescription for an opioid versus 1.6% among outpatient visits. There was a slight but significant decrease in the rate of opioid prescriptions in the ED setting over the study period, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97), but there was no significant change in the trend over time in the outpatient setting (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.09), Joel D. Hudgins, MD, and associates reported in Pediatrics.
“Opioid prescribing in ambulatory care visits is particularly high in the ED setting and … certain diagnoses appear to be routinely treated with an opioid,” said Dr. Hudgins and associates from Boston Children’s Hospital.
The highest rates of opioid prescribing among adolescents visiting the ED involved dental disorders (60%) and acute injuries such as fractures of the clavicle (47%), ankle (38%), and metacarpals (36%). “However, when considering the total volume of opioid prescriptions dispensed [over 7.8 million during 2005-2015], certain common conditions, including abdominal pain, acute pharyngitis, urinary tract infection, and headache, contributed large numbers of prescriptions as well,” they added.
The study involved data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (hospital-based EDs) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (office-based practices), which both are conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The senior investigator is supported by an award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The authors said that they have no relevant financial relationships.
SOURCE: Hudgins JD et al. Pediatrics. 2019 June. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1578.
although there was a small but significant decrease in prescriptions over that time, according to an analysis of two nationwide ambulatory care surveys.
For adolescents aged 13-17 years, 10.4% of ED visits were associated with a prescription for an opioid versus 1.6% among outpatient visits. There was a slight but significant decrease in the rate of opioid prescriptions in the ED setting over the study period, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97), but there was no significant change in the trend over time in the outpatient setting (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.09), Joel D. Hudgins, MD, and associates reported in Pediatrics.
“Opioid prescribing in ambulatory care visits is particularly high in the ED setting and … certain diagnoses appear to be routinely treated with an opioid,” said Dr. Hudgins and associates from Boston Children’s Hospital.
The highest rates of opioid prescribing among adolescents visiting the ED involved dental disorders (60%) and acute injuries such as fractures of the clavicle (47%), ankle (38%), and metacarpals (36%). “However, when considering the total volume of opioid prescriptions dispensed [over 7.8 million during 2005-2015], certain common conditions, including abdominal pain, acute pharyngitis, urinary tract infection, and headache, contributed large numbers of prescriptions as well,” they added.
The study involved data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (hospital-based EDs) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (office-based practices), which both are conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics.
The senior investigator is supported by an award from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The authors said that they have no relevant financial relationships.
SOURCE: Hudgins JD et al. Pediatrics. 2019 June. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-1578.
FROM PEDIATRICS
New JIA, JIA-associated uveitis guidelines address knowledge gaps
while attempting to address gaps in the clinical screening, monitoring, and treatment of these diseases.
The first guideline – which was published simultaneously in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology – offered 39 recommendations for treating children and adolescents with JIA and nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis. Due to the low quality of the supporting evidence, 31 of the recommendations were labeled as conditional.
“While these recommendations are intended to address common clinical situations, all treatment decisions must be individualized, with consideration of the unique aspects of each patient’s presentation, medical history, and preferences,” wrote first author Sarah Ringold, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital and her coauthors.
These recommendations serve as updates to an initial set on JIA treatment in 2011 and a 2013 addition on the treatment of systemic arthritis. In addition, the ACR has since adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to generate its recommendations, which was described in an interview with Dr. Ringold as providing “greater transparency around the decisions made during the recommendation development process.”
“An important difference from the 2011 guidelines is that is that initial NSAID monotherapy is no longer recommended for children with polyarthritis, given the established benefits of early initiation of DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy for these patients,” she added. “In addition, these guidelines also support inactive disease as a treatment goal for children with polyarthritis, with treatment escalation recommended for patients with low disease activity.”
As general recommendations for patients with JIA and polyarthritis, the coauthors strongly recommend using triamcinolone hexacetonide over triamcinolone acetonide for intraarticular glucocorticoid injections, along with using infliximab in combination with a DMARD. Despite the quality of the supporting evidence being very low, they also strongly recommend against adding chronic low-dose glucocorticoids to treatment because of well-known adverse effects like growth suppression, weight gain, osteopenia, and cataract.
Other strong recommendations include choosing treatment with an NSAID in children and adolescents with JIA and active sacroiliitis; adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) rather than continued NSAID monotherapy and avoiding methotrexate monotherapy in children and adolescents with active sacroiliitis despite NSAIDs; and choosing NSAID treatment in children and adolescents with JIA and active enthesitis.
Recommendations on JIA with associated uveitis
The second guideline – also published in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology – focused on the screening, monitoring, and treatment of JIA with associated uveitis. Their 19 recommendations serve as updates to 2006 recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics on routine ophthalmic screening in children with arthritis and 2012 recommendations from the German Uveitis in Childhood Study Group on proposed ophthalmic screening schedules, neither of which addressed the monitoring of children with an established diagnosis of uveitis or the treatment of uveitis.
“Although the quality of evidence was very low, and most recommendations were therefore conditional, this guideline fills an important clinical gap in the care of children with JIA-associated uveitis and may be updated as better evidence becomes available,” wrote first author Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and her coauthors.
Their strong recommendations include ophthalmic monitoring at least every 3 months in children and adolescents with JIA and controlled uveitis on stable therapy; monitoring within 1 month after each change of topical glucocorticoids in patients who are tapering or discontinuing that treatment; and monitoring within 2 months of changing systemic therapy for patients who are tapering or discontinuing that treatment.
They also strongly recommend education on the warning signs of acute anterior uveitis for children and adolescents with spondyloarthritis, along with tapering topical glucocorticoids before systemic therapy in children and adolescents with JIA and chronic anterior uveitis who are still on 1-2 drops a day of glucocorticoids.
“Our biggest message is that it is critical that uveitis is controlled, since persistent active uveitis can lead to sight-threatening complications and permanent vision loss,” Dr. Angeles-Han said in an interview. “It is important that ocular inflammation is controlled early, exposure to long-term topical glucocorticoids is limited, and that systemic treatment is started promptly.
“We also emphasize that close communication and collaboration between pediatric rheumatologists and ophthalmologists is important to ensure optimal vision outcomes,” she added.
These guidelines also factored in feedback from a patient and parent panel, particularly in regard to recommendations with a low level of supporting evidence.
“This partnership highlighted the importance of incorporating parent and patient preferences into treatment decisions and the need for shared decision-making approaches,” Dr. Ringold said.
Both guidelines were supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation. Several authors reported support from the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Fundación Bechara. Several authors also reported receiving consulting and speaking fees, along with research grants, from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCES: Ringold S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23870 ; Angeles-Han ST et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23871 .
while attempting to address gaps in the clinical screening, monitoring, and treatment of these diseases.
The first guideline – which was published simultaneously in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology – offered 39 recommendations for treating children and adolescents with JIA and nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis. Due to the low quality of the supporting evidence, 31 of the recommendations were labeled as conditional.
“While these recommendations are intended to address common clinical situations, all treatment decisions must be individualized, with consideration of the unique aspects of each patient’s presentation, medical history, and preferences,” wrote first author Sarah Ringold, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital and her coauthors.
These recommendations serve as updates to an initial set on JIA treatment in 2011 and a 2013 addition on the treatment of systemic arthritis. In addition, the ACR has since adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to generate its recommendations, which was described in an interview with Dr. Ringold as providing “greater transparency around the decisions made during the recommendation development process.”
“An important difference from the 2011 guidelines is that is that initial NSAID monotherapy is no longer recommended for children with polyarthritis, given the established benefits of early initiation of DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy for these patients,” she added. “In addition, these guidelines also support inactive disease as a treatment goal for children with polyarthritis, with treatment escalation recommended for patients with low disease activity.”
As general recommendations for patients with JIA and polyarthritis, the coauthors strongly recommend using triamcinolone hexacetonide over triamcinolone acetonide for intraarticular glucocorticoid injections, along with using infliximab in combination with a DMARD. Despite the quality of the supporting evidence being very low, they also strongly recommend against adding chronic low-dose glucocorticoids to treatment because of well-known adverse effects like growth suppression, weight gain, osteopenia, and cataract.
Other strong recommendations include choosing treatment with an NSAID in children and adolescents with JIA and active sacroiliitis; adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) rather than continued NSAID monotherapy and avoiding methotrexate monotherapy in children and adolescents with active sacroiliitis despite NSAIDs; and choosing NSAID treatment in children and adolescents with JIA and active enthesitis.
Recommendations on JIA with associated uveitis
The second guideline – also published in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology – focused on the screening, monitoring, and treatment of JIA with associated uveitis. Their 19 recommendations serve as updates to 2006 recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics on routine ophthalmic screening in children with arthritis and 2012 recommendations from the German Uveitis in Childhood Study Group on proposed ophthalmic screening schedules, neither of which addressed the monitoring of children with an established diagnosis of uveitis or the treatment of uveitis.
“Although the quality of evidence was very low, and most recommendations were therefore conditional, this guideline fills an important clinical gap in the care of children with JIA-associated uveitis and may be updated as better evidence becomes available,” wrote first author Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and her coauthors.
Their strong recommendations include ophthalmic monitoring at least every 3 months in children and adolescents with JIA and controlled uveitis on stable therapy; monitoring within 1 month after each change of topical glucocorticoids in patients who are tapering or discontinuing that treatment; and monitoring within 2 months of changing systemic therapy for patients who are tapering or discontinuing that treatment.
They also strongly recommend education on the warning signs of acute anterior uveitis for children and adolescents with spondyloarthritis, along with tapering topical glucocorticoids before systemic therapy in children and adolescents with JIA and chronic anterior uveitis who are still on 1-2 drops a day of glucocorticoids.
“Our biggest message is that it is critical that uveitis is controlled, since persistent active uveitis can lead to sight-threatening complications and permanent vision loss,” Dr. Angeles-Han said in an interview. “It is important that ocular inflammation is controlled early, exposure to long-term topical glucocorticoids is limited, and that systemic treatment is started promptly.
“We also emphasize that close communication and collaboration between pediatric rheumatologists and ophthalmologists is important to ensure optimal vision outcomes,” she added.
These guidelines also factored in feedback from a patient and parent panel, particularly in regard to recommendations with a low level of supporting evidence.
“This partnership highlighted the importance of incorporating parent and patient preferences into treatment decisions and the need for shared decision-making approaches,” Dr. Ringold said.
Both guidelines were supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation. Several authors reported support from the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Fundación Bechara. Several authors also reported receiving consulting and speaking fees, along with research grants, from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCES: Ringold S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23870 ; Angeles-Han ST et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23871 .
while attempting to address gaps in the clinical screening, monitoring, and treatment of these diseases.
The first guideline – which was published simultaneously in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology – offered 39 recommendations for treating children and adolescents with JIA and nonsystemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis. Due to the low quality of the supporting evidence, 31 of the recommendations were labeled as conditional.
“While these recommendations are intended to address common clinical situations, all treatment decisions must be individualized, with consideration of the unique aspects of each patient’s presentation, medical history, and preferences,” wrote first author Sarah Ringold, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital and her coauthors.
These recommendations serve as updates to an initial set on JIA treatment in 2011 and a 2013 addition on the treatment of systemic arthritis. In addition, the ACR has since adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to generate its recommendations, which was described in an interview with Dr. Ringold as providing “greater transparency around the decisions made during the recommendation development process.”
“An important difference from the 2011 guidelines is that is that initial NSAID monotherapy is no longer recommended for children with polyarthritis, given the established benefits of early initiation of DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy for these patients,” she added. “In addition, these guidelines also support inactive disease as a treatment goal for children with polyarthritis, with treatment escalation recommended for patients with low disease activity.”
As general recommendations for patients with JIA and polyarthritis, the coauthors strongly recommend using triamcinolone hexacetonide over triamcinolone acetonide for intraarticular glucocorticoid injections, along with using infliximab in combination with a DMARD. Despite the quality of the supporting evidence being very low, they also strongly recommend against adding chronic low-dose glucocorticoids to treatment because of well-known adverse effects like growth suppression, weight gain, osteopenia, and cataract.
Other strong recommendations include choosing treatment with an NSAID in children and adolescents with JIA and active sacroiliitis; adding a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) rather than continued NSAID monotherapy and avoiding methotrexate monotherapy in children and adolescents with active sacroiliitis despite NSAIDs; and choosing NSAID treatment in children and adolescents with JIA and active enthesitis.
Recommendations on JIA with associated uveitis
The second guideline – also published in Arthritis Care & Research and Arthritis & Rheumatology – focused on the screening, monitoring, and treatment of JIA with associated uveitis. Their 19 recommendations serve as updates to 2006 recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics on routine ophthalmic screening in children with arthritis and 2012 recommendations from the German Uveitis in Childhood Study Group on proposed ophthalmic screening schedules, neither of which addressed the monitoring of children with an established diagnosis of uveitis or the treatment of uveitis.
“Although the quality of evidence was very low, and most recommendations were therefore conditional, this guideline fills an important clinical gap in the care of children with JIA-associated uveitis and may be updated as better evidence becomes available,” wrote first author Sheila T. Angeles-Han, MD, of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and her coauthors.
Their strong recommendations include ophthalmic monitoring at least every 3 months in children and adolescents with JIA and controlled uveitis on stable therapy; monitoring within 1 month after each change of topical glucocorticoids in patients who are tapering or discontinuing that treatment; and monitoring within 2 months of changing systemic therapy for patients who are tapering or discontinuing that treatment.
They also strongly recommend education on the warning signs of acute anterior uveitis for children and adolescents with spondyloarthritis, along with tapering topical glucocorticoids before systemic therapy in children and adolescents with JIA and chronic anterior uveitis who are still on 1-2 drops a day of glucocorticoids.
“Our biggest message is that it is critical that uveitis is controlled, since persistent active uveitis can lead to sight-threatening complications and permanent vision loss,” Dr. Angeles-Han said in an interview. “It is important that ocular inflammation is controlled early, exposure to long-term topical glucocorticoids is limited, and that systemic treatment is started promptly.
“We also emphasize that close communication and collaboration between pediatric rheumatologists and ophthalmologists is important to ensure optimal vision outcomes,” she added.
These guidelines also factored in feedback from a patient and parent panel, particularly in regard to recommendations with a low level of supporting evidence.
“This partnership highlighted the importance of incorporating parent and patient preferences into treatment decisions and the need for shared decision-making approaches,” Dr. Ringold said.
Both guidelines were supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the Arthritis Foundation. Several authors reported support from the National Institutes of Health, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the Fundación Bechara. Several authors also reported receiving consulting and speaking fees, along with research grants, from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
SOURCES: Ringold S et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23870 ; Angeles-Han ST et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2019 Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/acr.23871 .
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
What is medical marijuana actually useful for?
PHILADELPHIA – , some insights into adverse effects, and “a lot of the Wild West,” Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, said here at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The opioid-sparing effects of medical marijuana have been highlighted in recent reports suggesting that cannabis users may use less opioids, and that states with medical marijuana laws have seen drops in opioid overdose mortality, Dr. Grossman said.
“That’s kind of a story on pain and cannabinoids, and that’s really the biggest story there is in terms of medical evidence and effectiveness for this agent,” said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Primary Care Lead for Behavioral Health Integration, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass.
However, being the top story in medical marijuana may not be a very high bar in 2019, given current issues with research in this area, including inconsistencies in medical marijuana formulations, relatively small numbers of patients enrolled in studies, and meta-analyses that have produced equivocal results.
“Unfortunately, this is an area where there’s a lot of, shall I say, ‘squishiness’ in the data, through no fault of the researchers involved – it’s just an area that’s really hard to study,” Dr. Goodman said in her update on medical marijuana use at the meeting.
Most studies of cannabinoids for chronic pain have compared these agents to placebo, rather than the long list of other medications that might be used to treat pain, Dr. Grossman said.
There are several meta-analyses available, including a recently published Cochrane review in which authors concluded that, for neuropathic pain, the potential benefits of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh their potential harms.
“The upshot here is that there may be some evidence for neuropathic pain, but the evidence is generally of poor quality and kind of mixed,” said Dr. Grossman.
State-level medical cannabis laws were linked to significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates in a 2014 study (JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174[10]:1668-73). In more recent studies, states with medical cannabis laws were found to have lower Medicare Part D opioid-prescribing rates, and in another study, legalization of medical marijuana was linked to lower rates of chronic and high-risk opioid use.
“It certainly seems like maybe we as prescribers are prescribing [fewer] opioids if there’s medical cannabis around,” Dr. Grossman said. “What this means for our patients in the short term and long term, we don’t totally know. But clearly, fewer opioid overdoses is a way better thing than more, so there could be something here.”
The cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration include nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol), both synthetic cannabinoids indicated for cancer chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting, along with cannabidiol (Epidiolex), just approved in June 2018 for treatment of some rare pediatric refractory epilepsy syndromes, Dr. Grossman said.
For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, evidence suggests oral cannabinoids are more effective than placebo, but there’s mixed evidence as to whether they are better than other antiemetics, Dr. Grossman said, while in terms of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, research has shown small improvements in patient-reported symptoms.
Long-term adverse event data specific to medical marijuana are scant, with much of the evidence coming from studies of recreational marijuana users, Dr. Grossman said.
Those long-term effects include increased risk of pulmonary effects such as cough, wheeze, and phlegm that improve with discontinuation; case reports of unintentional pediatric ingestions; and lower neonatal birth weight, which should be discussed with women of reproductive age who are using or considering medical marijuana, Dr. Grossman said.
Motor vehicle accidents, development of psychiatric symptoms, and psychosis relapse also have been linked to use, she said.
Some real-world adverse event data specific to medical marijuana data are available through the Minnesota medical cannabis program. They found 16% of surveyed users reported an adverse event within the first 4 months, including dry mouth, fatigue, mental clouding, and drowsiness, Dr. Grossman told attendees.
Dr. Grossman reported that she has no relationship with entities producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.
SOURCE: Grossman E. ACP 2019, Presentation MTP 010.
PHILADELPHIA – , some insights into adverse effects, and “a lot of the Wild West,” Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, said here at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The opioid-sparing effects of medical marijuana have been highlighted in recent reports suggesting that cannabis users may use less opioids, and that states with medical marijuana laws have seen drops in opioid overdose mortality, Dr. Grossman said.
“That’s kind of a story on pain and cannabinoids, and that’s really the biggest story there is in terms of medical evidence and effectiveness for this agent,” said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Primary Care Lead for Behavioral Health Integration, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass.
However, being the top story in medical marijuana may not be a very high bar in 2019, given current issues with research in this area, including inconsistencies in medical marijuana formulations, relatively small numbers of patients enrolled in studies, and meta-analyses that have produced equivocal results.
“Unfortunately, this is an area where there’s a lot of, shall I say, ‘squishiness’ in the data, through no fault of the researchers involved – it’s just an area that’s really hard to study,” Dr. Goodman said in her update on medical marijuana use at the meeting.
Most studies of cannabinoids for chronic pain have compared these agents to placebo, rather than the long list of other medications that might be used to treat pain, Dr. Grossman said.
There are several meta-analyses available, including a recently published Cochrane review in which authors concluded that, for neuropathic pain, the potential benefits of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh their potential harms.
“The upshot here is that there may be some evidence for neuropathic pain, but the evidence is generally of poor quality and kind of mixed,” said Dr. Grossman.
State-level medical cannabis laws were linked to significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates in a 2014 study (JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174[10]:1668-73). In more recent studies, states with medical cannabis laws were found to have lower Medicare Part D opioid-prescribing rates, and in another study, legalization of medical marijuana was linked to lower rates of chronic and high-risk opioid use.
“It certainly seems like maybe we as prescribers are prescribing [fewer] opioids if there’s medical cannabis around,” Dr. Grossman said. “What this means for our patients in the short term and long term, we don’t totally know. But clearly, fewer opioid overdoses is a way better thing than more, so there could be something here.”
The cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration include nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol), both synthetic cannabinoids indicated for cancer chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting, along with cannabidiol (Epidiolex), just approved in June 2018 for treatment of some rare pediatric refractory epilepsy syndromes, Dr. Grossman said.
For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, evidence suggests oral cannabinoids are more effective than placebo, but there’s mixed evidence as to whether they are better than other antiemetics, Dr. Grossman said, while in terms of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, research has shown small improvements in patient-reported symptoms.
Long-term adverse event data specific to medical marijuana are scant, with much of the evidence coming from studies of recreational marijuana users, Dr. Grossman said.
Those long-term effects include increased risk of pulmonary effects such as cough, wheeze, and phlegm that improve with discontinuation; case reports of unintentional pediatric ingestions; and lower neonatal birth weight, which should be discussed with women of reproductive age who are using or considering medical marijuana, Dr. Grossman said.
Motor vehicle accidents, development of psychiatric symptoms, and psychosis relapse also have been linked to use, she said.
Some real-world adverse event data specific to medical marijuana data are available through the Minnesota medical cannabis program. They found 16% of surveyed users reported an adverse event within the first 4 months, including dry mouth, fatigue, mental clouding, and drowsiness, Dr. Grossman told attendees.
Dr. Grossman reported that she has no relationship with entities producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.
SOURCE: Grossman E. ACP 2019, Presentation MTP 010.
PHILADELPHIA – , some insights into adverse effects, and “a lot of the Wild West,” Ellie Grossman, MD, MPH, said here at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
The opioid-sparing effects of medical marijuana have been highlighted in recent reports suggesting that cannabis users may use less opioids, and that states with medical marijuana laws have seen drops in opioid overdose mortality, Dr. Grossman said.
“That’s kind of a story on pain and cannabinoids, and that’s really the biggest story there is in terms of medical evidence and effectiveness for this agent,” said Dr. Grossman, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and Primary Care Lead for Behavioral Health Integration, Cambridge Health Alliance, Somerville, Mass.
However, being the top story in medical marijuana may not be a very high bar in 2019, given current issues with research in this area, including inconsistencies in medical marijuana formulations, relatively small numbers of patients enrolled in studies, and meta-analyses that have produced equivocal results.
“Unfortunately, this is an area where there’s a lot of, shall I say, ‘squishiness’ in the data, through no fault of the researchers involved – it’s just an area that’s really hard to study,” Dr. Goodman said in her update on medical marijuana use at the meeting.
Most studies of cannabinoids for chronic pain have compared these agents to placebo, rather than the long list of other medications that might be used to treat pain, Dr. Grossman said.
There are several meta-analyses available, including a recently published Cochrane review in which authors concluded that, for neuropathic pain, the potential benefits of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh their potential harms.
“The upshot here is that there may be some evidence for neuropathic pain, but the evidence is generally of poor quality and kind of mixed,” said Dr. Grossman.
State-level medical cannabis laws were linked to significantly lower opioid overdose mortality rates in a 2014 study (JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174[10]:1668-73). In more recent studies, states with medical cannabis laws were found to have lower Medicare Part D opioid-prescribing rates, and in another study, legalization of medical marijuana was linked to lower rates of chronic and high-risk opioid use.
“It certainly seems like maybe we as prescribers are prescribing [fewer] opioids if there’s medical cannabis around,” Dr. Grossman said. “What this means for our patients in the short term and long term, we don’t totally know. But clearly, fewer opioid overdoses is a way better thing than more, so there could be something here.”
The cannabinoids approved by the Food and Drug Administration include nabilone (Cesamet) and dronabinol (Marinol), both synthetic cannabinoids indicated for cancer chemotherapy–related nausea and vomiting, along with cannabidiol (Epidiolex), just approved in June 2018 for treatment of some rare pediatric refractory epilepsy syndromes, Dr. Grossman said.
For chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, evidence suggests oral cannabinoids are more effective than placebo, but there’s mixed evidence as to whether they are better than other antiemetics, Dr. Grossman said, while in terms of spasticity related to multiple sclerosis, research has shown small improvements in patient-reported symptoms.
Long-term adverse event data specific to medical marijuana are scant, with much of the evidence coming from studies of recreational marijuana users, Dr. Grossman said.
Those long-term effects include increased risk of pulmonary effects such as cough, wheeze, and phlegm that improve with discontinuation; case reports of unintentional pediatric ingestions; and lower neonatal birth weight, which should be discussed with women of reproductive age who are using or considering medical marijuana, Dr. Grossman said.
Motor vehicle accidents, development of psychiatric symptoms, and psychosis relapse also have been linked to use, she said.
Some real-world adverse event data specific to medical marijuana data are available through the Minnesota medical cannabis program. They found 16% of surveyed users reported an adverse event within the first 4 months, including dry mouth, fatigue, mental clouding, and drowsiness, Dr. Grossman told attendees.
Dr. Grossman reported that she has no relationship with entities producing, marketing, reselling, or distributing health care goods or services consumed by, or used on, patients.
SOURCE: Grossman E. ACP 2019, Presentation MTP 010.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2019
Click for Credit: Endometriosis surgery benefits; diabetes & aging; more
Here are 5 articles from the March issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):
1. Endometriosis surgery: Women can expect years-long benefits
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Ez8mdu
Expires January 3, 2019
2. Cerebral small vessel disease progression linked to MCI in hypertensive patients
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ExDV7o
Expires January 4, 2019
3. Adult atopic dermatitis is fraught with dermatologic comorbidities
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Vl7E9a
Expires January 11, 2019
4. Antidepressants tied to greater hip fracture incidence in older adults
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GRfMeH
Expires January 4, 2019
5. Researchers exploring ways to mitigate aging’s impact on diabetes
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2tFxF7v
Expires January 8, 2019
Here are 5 articles from the March issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):
1. Endometriosis surgery: Women can expect years-long benefits
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Ez8mdu
Expires January 3, 2019
2. Cerebral small vessel disease progression linked to MCI in hypertensive patients
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ExDV7o
Expires January 4, 2019
3. Adult atopic dermatitis is fraught with dermatologic comorbidities
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Vl7E9a
Expires January 11, 2019
4. Antidepressants tied to greater hip fracture incidence in older adults
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GRfMeH
Expires January 4, 2019
5. Researchers exploring ways to mitigate aging’s impact on diabetes
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2tFxF7v
Expires January 8, 2019
Here are 5 articles from the March issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):
1. Endometriosis surgery: Women can expect years-long benefits
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Ez8mdu
Expires January 3, 2019
2. Cerebral small vessel disease progression linked to MCI in hypertensive patients
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2ExDV7o
Expires January 4, 2019
3. Adult atopic dermatitis is fraught with dermatologic comorbidities
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2Vl7E9a
Expires January 11, 2019
4. Antidepressants tied to greater hip fracture incidence in older adults
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2GRfMeH
Expires January 4, 2019
5. Researchers exploring ways to mitigate aging’s impact on diabetes
To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2tFxF7v
Expires January 8, 2019
Precision medicine in rheumatology: Enormous opportunity exists
Advances in precision medicine present enormous opportunity for rheumatology, but optimizing its benefits requires more input from the specialty and a sharper focus on related training for rheumatologists, according to Judith A. James, MD, PhD.
Precision medicine is getting a great deal of attention and is an exciting area, but it is already widely used in the field; think treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibody testing for patient stratification across various conditions, and individual monitoring and dose escalation to achieve optimal uric acid levels in gout patients, Dr. James, professor of medicine and associate vice provost of clinical and translational science at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
“We have historically ... actually had the highest number of FDA approved biomarker tests in rheumatology compared to all other specialties until this last couple of years where we’re starting to see this explosion of genetic testing in oncology – and we’ve been doing genetic testing,” she said.
However, there is a great deal more work to be done.
“We still have a long way to go to go to get the right drug at the right dose at the right time in the right patient in order to optimize outcomes in all of these diseases that we are responsible for as rheumatologists,” she said.
The fields of oncology and hematology have been intensely focused on precision medicine – the development of unique therapies based on specific genetic abnormalities in an individual’s tumor – and this focus is apparent in practice patterns: A recent survey of 132 medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists showed that nearly 90% had ordered DNA sequencing, about 65% do so monthly, and 25% do so weekly.
“Those numbers are just going to continue to climb, and I think will see this in other disciplines as well,” she said.
The possibilities for improved outcomes in rheumatologic conditions using tailored treatments based on individual characteristics are practically limitless, she said, noting the heterogeneity of many rheumatologic conditions.
This is particularly true for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, she said.
Identifying patient subsets based on organ involvement, demographics, and biomarkers, for example, could lead to personalized treatments with different doses, routes of administration, and concurrent medications, she explained.
Genetics in SLE
Dr. James highlighted the role of genetics and the value of precision medicine in the SLE setting in a large transancestral association study published in 2017. The investigators analyzed Immunochip genotype data from 27,574 SLE cases and controls and identified 58 distinct non–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) regions in Americans with European ancestry, 9 in those with African ancestry, and 16 in those with Hispanic ancestry. The investigators found that these non-HLA regions included 24 novel to SLE, and in their analysis the researchers were able to refine association signals in previously established regions, extend associations to additional ancestries, and reveal a complex multigenic effect just outside of the HLA region (Nature Commun. 2017;8:16021).
The findings led to a “cumulative hit hypothesis” for autoimmune disease, and help to clarify genetic architecture and ethnic disparities in SLE, they concluded.
“So we now have over a hundred genetic regions that have been associated with lupus, compared to healthy controls,” Dr. James said.
A frustration with genetic data such as these, however, is the challenge of “getting it into the clinic,” she noted.
“I think that looking at individual [single nuclear polymorphisms] is probably not what we’re going to be doing, but we’re seeing a lot of interest in the idea of genetic load,” she said, explaining that it may soon be possible to use genetic load information to evaluate patient risk.
A recent study at her institution looked at lupus risk from another angle: She and her colleagues recontacted family members from Oklahoma Lupus Genetics studies to look more closely at which blood relatives of SLE patients transitioned to SLE, and what factors were associated with that transition when compared with relatives who remained unaffected (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69[3]:630-42).
Among the findings was a higher risk of transitioning among family members with both a positive antinuclear antibody test and a baseline Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire score indicative of connective tissue disease.
“We also found, of course, biomarkers, or blood markers, that helped us identify the individuals who were at the highest risk of transitioning, so we think a blood test might really be helpful,” she said.
That study also suggested that there may be ways to intervene in SLE patients’ relatives at increased risk for also developing lupus. For example, those who transitioned had increased levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors and the interferon-driven chemokine MCP-3; a prevention trial is now underway, she noted.
Beyond genetics
Genetics are just one piece of the precision medicine puzzle, and other areas of investigation that may help to divide patients into subgroups for more precise treatment include genomics, soluble mediators, and immunophenotyping, Dr. James said.
“It may be that we need different pieces of all of these things to help guide our treatment in lupus patients,” she said.
Longitudinal clinical and blood transcriptional profiling of patients in the Dallas Pediatric SLE cohort, for example, identified a molecular classification system for SLE patients. The analysis of 972 samples from 158 SLE patients and 48 healthy controls, which were collected for up to 4 years, showed that an interferon response signature was present in 784 of the samples.
The investigators found that a plasmablast signature, which is found more in African-American patients than in other populations, best correlates with disease activity and that a neutrophil-related signature is associated with progression to active lupus nephritis (Cell. 2016;165[3]:551-65).
“This is something that will potentially be helpful [in the clinic], and we need to test this in the adult population,” Dr. James said.
The investigators also were able to stratify patients, based on individual immunoprofiling, into seven major groups based on molecular correlates. They concluded that such stratification could help improve the outcomes of clinical trials in SLE.
In another study, researchers looked at longitudinal gene expression in SLE patients by stratifying each of two independent sets of patients (a pediatric cohort and an adult cohort) into three clinically differentiated disease clusters defined by mechanisms of disease progression (Arthritis Rheumatol. Dec 2018;70[12]:2025-35).
The clusters included one showing a correlation between the percentage of neutrophils and disease activity progression, one showing a correlation between the percentage of lymphocytes and disease activity progression, and a third for which the percentage of neutrophils correlated to a lesser degree with disease activity but was functionally more heterogeneous. Patients in the two neutrophil‐driven clusters had an increased risk of developing proliferative nephritis.
The results have implications for treatment, trial design, and understanding of disease etiology, the investigators concluded.
“This may help us in the future as we think about which medicine to start patients on, and which medicines to start patients on first,” Dr. James said.
It is clear that precision medicine will play an increasingly important role in rheumatology, Dr. James said, when considering the context of other findings in recent years, such as those from studies looking at soluble mediators of inflammation associated with disease flare, as well as those that involved extensive immunophenotyping and showed widely divergent transcriptional patterns based on ancestral backgrounds. Other research, such as the BOLD (Biomarkers of Lupus Disease) study, looked at various mechanisms of disease flare.
Numerous types of personalized therapies are being considered in rheumatology, ranging from expanded regulatory T cells to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy to risk profiling for disease prevention, just to name a few. Going forward it will be important to perform more systems biology analyses to assemble precision medicine–related data that can inform clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy selection and optimization, she said.
The future of personalized therapies in rheumatology will require more input from rheumatologists on large-scale precision medicine projects such as the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Project and the Million Veteran Program, as well as other similar programs of major health systems, she noted, adding that different types of training and interaction with molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, health coaches, and other key players also are needed.
Dr. James reported having no relevant disclosures.
Advances in precision medicine present enormous opportunity for rheumatology, but optimizing its benefits requires more input from the specialty and a sharper focus on related training for rheumatologists, according to Judith A. James, MD, PhD.
Precision medicine is getting a great deal of attention and is an exciting area, but it is already widely used in the field; think treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibody testing for patient stratification across various conditions, and individual monitoring and dose escalation to achieve optimal uric acid levels in gout patients, Dr. James, professor of medicine and associate vice provost of clinical and translational science at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
“We have historically ... actually had the highest number of FDA approved biomarker tests in rheumatology compared to all other specialties until this last couple of years where we’re starting to see this explosion of genetic testing in oncology – and we’ve been doing genetic testing,” she said.
However, there is a great deal more work to be done.
“We still have a long way to go to go to get the right drug at the right dose at the right time in the right patient in order to optimize outcomes in all of these diseases that we are responsible for as rheumatologists,” she said.
The fields of oncology and hematology have been intensely focused on precision medicine – the development of unique therapies based on specific genetic abnormalities in an individual’s tumor – and this focus is apparent in practice patterns: A recent survey of 132 medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists showed that nearly 90% had ordered DNA sequencing, about 65% do so monthly, and 25% do so weekly.
“Those numbers are just going to continue to climb, and I think will see this in other disciplines as well,” she said.
The possibilities for improved outcomes in rheumatologic conditions using tailored treatments based on individual characteristics are practically limitless, she said, noting the heterogeneity of many rheumatologic conditions.
This is particularly true for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, she said.
Identifying patient subsets based on organ involvement, demographics, and biomarkers, for example, could lead to personalized treatments with different doses, routes of administration, and concurrent medications, she explained.
Genetics in SLE
Dr. James highlighted the role of genetics and the value of precision medicine in the SLE setting in a large transancestral association study published in 2017. The investigators analyzed Immunochip genotype data from 27,574 SLE cases and controls and identified 58 distinct non–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) regions in Americans with European ancestry, 9 in those with African ancestry, and 16 in those with Hispanic ancestry. The investigators found that these non-HLA regions included 24 novel to SLE, and in their analysis the researchers were able to refine association signals in previously established regions, extend associations to additional ancestries, and reveal a complex multigenic effect just outside of the HLA region (Nature Commun. 2017;8:16021).
The findings led to a “cumulative hit hypothesis” for autoimmune disease, and help to clarify genetic architecture and ethnic disparities in SLE, they concluded.
“So we now have over a hundred genetic regions that have been associated with lupus, compared to healthy controls,” Dr. James said.
A frustration with genetic data such as these, however, is the challenge of “getting it into the clinic,” she noted.
“I think that looking at individual [single nuclear polymorphisms] is probably not what we’re going to be doing, but we’re seeing a lot of interest in the idea of genetic load,” she said, explaining that it may soon be possible to use genetic load information to evaluate patient risk.
A recent study at her institution looked at lupus risk from another angle: She and her colleagues recontacted family members from Oklahoma Lupus Genetics studies to look more closely at which blood relatives of SLE patients transitioned to SLE, and what factors were associated with that transition when compared with relatives who remained unaffected (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69[3]:630-42).
Among the findings was a higher risk of transitioning among family members with both a positive antinuclear antibody test and a baseline Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire score indicative of connective tissue disease.
“We also found, of course, biomarkers, or blood markers, that helped us identify the individuals who were at the highest risk of transitioning, so we think a blood test might really be helpful,” she said.
That study also suggested that there may be ways to intervene in SLE patients’ relatives at increased risk for also developing lupus. For example, those who transitioned had increased levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors and the interferon-driven chemokine MCP-3; a prevention trial is now underway, she noted.
Beyond genetics
Genetics are just one piece of the precision medicine puzzle, and other areas of investigation that may help to divide patients into subgroups for more precise treatment include genomics, soluble mediators, and immunophenotyping, Dr. James said.
“It may be that we need different pieces of all of these things to help guide our treatment in lupus patients,” she said.
Longitudinal clinical and blood transcriptional profiling of patients in the Dallas Pediatric SLE cohort, for example, identified a molecular classification system for SLE patients. The analysis of 972 samples from 158 SLE patients and 48 healthy controls, which were collected for up to 4 years, showed that an interferon response signature was present in 784 of the samples.
The investigators found that a plasmablast signature, which is found more in African-American patients than in other populations, best correlates with disease activity and that a neutrophil-related signature is associated with progression to active lupus nephritis (Cell. 2016;165[3]:551-65).
“This is something that will potentially be helpful [in the clinic], and we need to test this in the adult population,” Dr. James said.
The investigators also were able to stratify patients, based on individual immunoprofiling, into seven major groups based on molecular correlates. They concluded that such stratification could help improve the outcomes of clinical trials in SLE.
In another study, researchers looked at longitudinal gene expression in SLE patients by stratifying each of two independent sets of patients (a pediatric cohort and an adult cohort) into three clinically differentiated disease clusters defined by mechanisms of disease progression (Arthritis Rheumatol. Dec 2018;70[12]:2025-35).
The clusters included one showing a correlation between the percentage of neutrophils and disease activity progression, one showing a correlation between the percentage of lymphocytes and disease activity progression, and a third for which the percentage of neutrophils correlated to a lesser degree with disease activity but was functionally more heterogeneous. Patients in the two neutrophil‐driven clusters had an increased risk of developing proliferative nephritis.
The results have implications for treatment, trial design, and understanding of disease etiology, the investigators concluded.
“This may help us in the future as we think about which medicine to start patients on, and which medicines to start patients on first,” Dr. James said.
It is clear that precision medicine will play an increasingly important role in rheumatology, Dr. James said, when considering the context of other findings in recent years, such as those from studies looking at soluble mediators of inflammation associated with disease flare, as well as those that involved extensive immunophenotyping and showed widely divergent transcriptional patterns based on ancestral backgrounds. Other research, such as the BOLD (Biomarkers of Lupus Disease) study, looked at various mechanisms of disease flare.
Numerous types of personalized therapies are being considered in rheumatology, ranging from expanded regulatory T cells to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy to risk profiling for disease prevention, just to name a few. Going forward it will be important to perform more systems biology analyses to assemble precision medicine–related data that can inform clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy selection and optimization, she said.
The future of personalized therapies in rheumatology will require more input from rheumatologists on large-scale precision medicine projects such as the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Project and the Million Veteran Program, as well as other similar programs of major health systems, she noted, adding that different types of training and interaction with molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, health coaches, and other key players also are needed.
Dr. James reported having no relevant disclosures.
Advances in precision medicine present enormous opportunity for rheumatology, but optimizing its benefits requires more input from the specialty and a sharper focus on related training for rheumatologists, according to Judith A. James, MD, PhD.
Precision medicine is getting a great deal of attention and is an exciting area, but it is already widely used in the field; think treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis, autoantibody testing for patient stratification across various conditions, and individual monitoring and dose escalation to achieve optimal uric acid levels in gout patients, Dr. James, professor of medicine and associate vice provost of clinical and translational science at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
“We have historically ... actually had the highest number of FDA approved biomarker tests in rheumatology compared to all other specialties until this last couple of years where we’re starting to see this explosion of genetic testing in oncology – and we’ve been doing genetic testing,” she said.
However, there is a great deal more work to be done.
“We still have a long way to go to go to get the right drug at the right dose at the right time in the right patient in order to optimize outcomes in all of these diseases that we are responsible for as rheumatologists,” she said.
The fields of oncology and hematology have been intensely focused on precision medicine – the development of unique therapies based on specific genetic abnormalities in an individual’s tumor – and this focus is apparent in practice patterns: A recent survey of 132 medical oncologists and hematologists/oncologists showed that nearly 90% had ordered DNA sequencing, about 65% do so monthly, and 25% do so weekly.
“Those numbers are just going to continue to climb, and I think will see this in other disciplines as well,” she said.
The possibilities for improved outcomes in rheumatologic conditions using tailored treatments based on individual characteristics are practically limitless, she said, noting the heterogeneity of many rheumatologic conditions.
This is particularly true for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients, she said.
Identifying patient subsets based on organ involvement, demographics, and biomarkers, for example, could lead to personalized treatments with different doses, routes of administration, and concurrent medications, she explained.
Genetics in SLE
Dr. James highlighted the role of genetics and the value of precision medicine in the SLE setting in a large transancestral association study published in 2017. The investigators analyzed Immunochip genotype data from 27,574 SLE cases and controls and identified 58 distinct non–human leukocyte antigen (HLA) regions in Americans with European ancestry, 9 in those with African ancestry, and 16 in those with Hispanic ancestry. The investigators found that these non-HLA regions included 24 novel to SLE, and in their analysis the researchers were able to refine association signals in previously established regions, extend associations to additional ancestries, and reveal a complex multigenic effect just outside of the HLA region (Nature Commun. 2017;8:16021).
The findings led to a “cumulative hit hypothesis” for autoimmune disease, and help to clarify genetic architecture and ethnic disparities in SLE, they concluded.
“So we now have over a hundred genetic regions that have been associated with lupus, compared to healthy controls,” Dr. James said.
A frustration with genetic data such as these, however, is the challenge of “getting it into the clinic,” she noted.
“I think that looking at individual [single nuclear polymorphisms] is probably not what we’re going to be doing, but we’re seeing a lot of interest in the idea of genetic load,” she said, explaining that it may soon be possible to use genetic load information to evaluate patient risk.
A recent study at her institution looked at lupus risk from another angle: She and her colleagues recontacted family members from Oklahoma Lupus Genetics studies to look more closely at which blood relatives of SLE patients transitioned to SLE, and what factors were associated with that transition when compared with relatives who remained unaffected (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69[3]:630-42).
Among the findings was a higher risk of transitioning among family members with both a positive antinuclear antibody test and a baseline Connective Tissue Disease Screening Questionnaire score indicative of connective tissue disease.
“We also found, of course, biomarkers, or blood markers, that helped us identify the individuals who were at the highest risk of transitioning, so we think a blood test might really be helpful,” she said.
That study also suggested that there may be ways to intervene in SLE patients’ relatives at increased risk for also developing lupus. For example, those who transitioned had increased levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors and the interferon-driven chemokine MCP-3; a prevention trial is now underway, she noted.
Beyond genetics
Genetics are just one piece of the precision medicine puzzle, and other areas of investigation that may help to divide patients into subgroups for more precise treatment include genomics, soluble mediators, and immunophenotyping, Dr. James said.
“It may be that we need different pieces of all of these things to help guide our treatment in lupus patients,” she said.
Longitudinal clinical and blood transcriptional profiling of patients in the Dallas Pediatric SLE cohort, for example, identified a molecular classification system for SLE patients. The analysis of 972 samples from 158 SLE patients and 48 healthy controls, which were collected for up to 4 years, showed that an interferon response signature was present in 784 of the samples.
The investigators found that a plasmablast signature, which is found more in African-American patients than in other populations, best correlates with disease activity and that a neutrophil-related signature is associated with progression to active lupus nephritis (Cell. 2016;165[3]:551-65).
“This is something that will potentially be helpful [in the clinic], and we need to test this in the adult population,” Dr. James said.
The investigators also were able to stratify patients, based on individual immunoprofiling, into seven major groups based on molecular correlates. They concluded that such stratification could help improve the outcomes of clinical trials in SLE.
In another study, researchers looked at longitudinal gene expression in SLE patients by stratifying each of two independent sets of patients (a pediatric cohort and an adult cohort) into three clinically differentiated disease clusters defined by mechanisms of disease progression (Arthritis Rheumatol. Dec 2018;70[12]:2025-35).
The clusters included one showing a correlation between the percentage of neutrophils and disease activity progression, one showing a correlation between the percentage of lymphocytes and disease activity progression, and a third for which the percentage of neutrophils correlated to a lesser degree with disease activity but was functionally more heterogeneous. Patients in the two neutrophil‐driven clusters had an increased risk of developing proliferative nephritis.
The results have implications for treatment, trial design, and understanding of disease etiology, the investigators concluded.
“This may help us in the future as we think about which medicine to start patients on, and which medicines to start patients on first,” Dr. James said.
It is clear that precision medicine will play an increasingly important role in rheumatology, Dr. James said, when considering the context of other findings in recent years, such as those from studies looking at soluble mediators of inflammation associated with disease flare, as well as those that involved extensive immunophenotyping and showed widely divergent transcriptional patterns based on ancestral backgrounds. Other research, such as the BOLD (Biomarkers of Lupus Disease) study, looked at various mechanisms of disease flare.
Numerous types of personalized therapies are being considered in rheumatology, ranging from expanded regulatory T cells to chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy to risk profiling for disease prevention, just to name a few. Going forward it will be important to perform more systems biology analyses to assemble precision medicine–related data that can inform clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy selection and optimization, she said.
The future of personalized therapies in rheumatology will require more input from rheumatologists on large-scale precision medicine projects such as the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Project and the Million Veteran Program, as well as other similar programs of major health systems, she noted, adding that different types of training and interaction with molecular pathologists, genetic counselors, health coaches, and other key players also are needed.
Dr. James reported having no relevant disclosures.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE WINTER RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM